6th Meeting - 2nd Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2026

Excellency, distinguished delegates, could I ask you to take your seats again? I hope you all had a good break and some good opportunities to exchange views with colleagues. We have eight more requests for the floor, and I think we have now nine. like you to consider whether you really need to take the floor if you have to add something to what has been said so far because we keep repeating things that have already been said that's not necessary for the chairs team because we will take the points into consideration during the ongoing revision of the draft final report that we hope to present to you perhaps today and otherwise it will be tomorrow morning. But of course, if we can do it today, that might be helpful. And we know, of course, that we have an evening program. Let me now resume with the list of speakers. I have first Mexico to be followed by Australia and Singapore. But let me pass the floor first to the distinguished representative of Mexico. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to refer to some of the points of the text. On 39, we believe that legal reviews are necessary to identify in advance the private use and the necessary conditions in order to ensure the compatibility of laws with IHL. In this respect, we support the current language of the text and the subparagraph. We believe the current language aligns fully with existing IHL. and also looks at how this jails with direct challenges posed by laws. We share the concerns that were expressed by Belgium and other countries related to the term substantial. On 40 we join those delegations that express their preference to have a reference to realistic simulations. the cognitive limitations of systems and algorithmic bias, potential algorithmic bias requires that tests are carried out in conditions that really reflect the conditions of unpredictability of real combat operations. would like to thank what the ICRC said and we can accept the introduction of the term representativeness. We also welcome the introduction of predictability, explainability and traceability. It gives the text greater legal consistency. This provides the crucial understandable foundations to ensure that we have meaningful human control and relevant accountability. Finally, in 48, just like New Zealand, we'd like to include the word 'should'. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for stating the positions of our delegation and making proposals for the text. Next on my list is Australia, to be followed by Singapore, but first Australia. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Australia can accept the remaining aspects of the text in their current form and will offer a few comments across the text. On para 34, we can accept the paragraph as it is on the basis that any future negotiation of an instrument would need to set out how this would be operationalised, including relevant exceptions regarding countermeasures. On paragraph 40A, we can accept this paragraph but would support the reinsertion of the word realistic. Realistic simulations are useful to ensure we have confidence in the system and inform the judgment required to ensure that the use of laws are in full compliance with IHL. On para 40C, we recognize that there are a number of delegations for whom it's important to include the terms predictable, and explainable. A challenge has been trying to use terms that have separate technical meanings. What is important is that the system is sufficiently or adequately predictable and explainable to inform the human judgment and ensure the functioning and effects of a weapon system are in compliance with IHL. On that basis, we support the proposals to include an appropriate qualifier before those terms, such as adequately. We have listened to the suggestions from the US on para 43 and France on para 46 with interest and will consider closely. Thank you.

And let me thank the distinguished representative of Australia. And next on my list is Singapore to be followed by the Ukraine. But first, let me pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. My delegation previously provided our comments on the paragraphs 40 alpha to 40 Charlie during the informal consultations we listened to the floor this morning. We support the proposed formulation by the ICRC regarding paragraph 40 alpha. On paragraph 40 Charlie, we note that several other delegations, such as the delegation of the UAE, have continued to raise questions about the standard of predictability and reliability required. We therefore reiterate our support for the intervention from France and Australia just regarding 40 Charlie on the reinstatement of adequately or sufficiently. Thank you, Chair.

And let me thank the distinguished representative of Singapore, and let's move forward to the distinguished representative of Ukraine to be followed by Peru. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Chair. The delegation of Ukraine takes this opportunity to reaffirm our support for her work and our overall endorsement of the existing text. Our delegation has been listening with utmost attention to the statements made by the delegations of states and other stakeholders and we are cognizant of their concerns, many of which are legitimate. Furthermore, we believe that most of the genuine concerns can be addressed today by amending the existing formulations. We're supportive of further editing, but it would be not easy for us to support the removal of entire paragraphs, which some of the delegation have proposed. It is our position that the existing structure must remain in place. With that being said, please allow us to provide certain particular commentaries. As for paragraph 34, heavily debated recently, we believe that it can potentially be a part of the text. But the existing version entails a number of questions. Most notably, is this an analogue of the never under any circumstances obligation to be found in treaties prohibiting weapons of mass destruction or other treaties? If so, we should aim for the same wording. If not, then the text is about to create another standard which requires further consideration as to its scope and limits. As for paragraph 39, We recognize that this paragraph largely reflects the duty found in Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Some States, acting in their sovereign right, chose not to join the Protocol. However, we also know that some States not parties to the Protocol have developed effective review procedures, while some States that are parties to the Protocol lack such procedures. Therefore, There exists no straightforward connection between membership in the Protocol and legal reviews. And thus, we cannot agree that introduction of paragraph 39 of the text would amount to imposing an obligation under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I. At that, we take review of weapons, means and methods of warfare as an emerging standard of international law that reflects, that receives increasing attention in recent years. We furthermore believe that the adoption of the existing version of the text of paragraph 39 may contribute to the development of that standard, regardless of the instrument in which it is reflected. A review is especially important for new technologies, capabilities of which are not entirely understandable. We therefore deem it vital to maintain the review obligation in the existing text. We do not agree with the point that obligations under subparagraphs alpha and bravo are essentially identical and can therefore be merged or omitted. While the first paragraph speaks about the development of the new lethal autonomous weapon systems, the second one addresses modification of existing laws. Our delegation believes that such paragraph Bravo serves as an important safeguard against misuse of technologies. We do not oppose proposals to reformulate this paragraph. provided that any such formulation clearly reflects the distinction between existing and new AI capabilities. Turning to paragraph 40, we would like to comment on the matter of testing described in subparagraph alpha. We deem evaluations based on realistic simulations to be a pivotal element of review of all artificial intelligence capabilities, including laws. Here, we deem it necessary to reiterate that human judgment and control do not exist in vacuum. They can vary depending on the circumstances, an issue which has been extensively discussed yesterday. Realistic simulations, as we see them, must reproduce the actual circumstances of use in order to verify compliance of laws with IHL. We therefore strongly support the existing formulation of paragraph 40 alpha. On subparagraph bravo, We will only briefly mention the importance of appropriate guidance and training that increase human competence necessary for the use of laws. As for sub-paragraph Charlie, we support the retention of criteria of predictability and reliability. To us, these criteria serve the purpose of compliance with IHL principles, including striking a fair balance between humanity and military necessity. It must be understood that any responsible user of the laws as well as any responsible person in the chain of command, must necessarily be interested in reliability and predictability of the system. Therefore, it appears to us that the existing formulation of subparagraph Charlie reflects ordinary common sense. Our delegation supports existing paragraphs 41 and 42 with the exception that we believe that the word should must be replaced with the word must. Ukraine views bias mitigation as a part of precautions that must be taken in attack or defense, including with the use of laws. As far as precautions are a duty, not an option, it is the word must that should be used here to denote a firm obligation. At the same time, our delegation is mindful of the proposals to move the obligations under paragraphs 41 and 42 to make them part of other paragraphs. and our delegation will support the discussion on any such proposals. Our delegation confirms its overall support for paragraphs 43 to 45. However, as for paragraph 44, we believe that the wording "States must ensure individual accountability for the means and methods" can be replaced with "States must ensure individual accountability for the use of means and methods of warfare". Alternatively, we can consider adding other obligations like accountability for the development, acquisition, and use. However, we do not deem this necessary since relevant obligations are already reflected in paragraph 39. Addressing paragraphs 46 and 47, our delegation maintains that the duty of States to suppress IHL violations and ensure effective mechanisms of investigation must be in place. Our delegation believes that these duties reflect a customary norm that must be restated and confirmed, and such a duty does not lie exclusively within the internal jurisdiction of the state. This concludes our intervention. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine for commenting on the text and proposals made. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Peru, to be followed by Mozambique and the United Kingdom. Let me now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru.

Mr. President, Peru wishes to thank you for your additional suggestions relating to paragraphs 39 to 48. In our view, this part of the text provides many practical suggestions for throughout the life cycle of laws and in general, we can support the general thrust of the changes that are proposed. Now, paragraph 39. We welcome the clarification that there must be legal reviews during the review, acquisition and adoption cycle of laws. At the same time, just like other delegations, we believe that it is important to keep sub-paragraph of 39, recognising that subsequent changes affecting the functions of identification, selection and engagement and attack of the proposed systems may require a legal review. At the same time, the words "as appropriate", which we find in the Title or chapeau of 39 should not be understood as a withdrawal of the existing obligations to legal reviews. Ideally, this should be deleted. This phrase should be deleted. Now on paragraph 40. We believe it's particularly important to guarantee that the capacities and limitations of these systems be fully understood. In this regard, we believe that the final draft should keep the requirements on predictability and reliability in operation, and there should also be a mention of traceability and explainability of the effects of the systems. These elements are key to ensure that there is compliance with international humanitarian law. In paragraphs 41 and 42 on the question of bias, we welcome your proposals. In paragraph 41, we prefer to delete the phrase "as much as possible". and to replace it by to the extent feasible. Sir, we welcome the principles and support the principles in paragraphs 43 and 44. Accountability cannot be transferred to machines. the states, parties to a conflict and individuals are subject to applicable rules on accountability and responsibility. We believe it's particularly important to keep the requirement that these systems operate within a responsible command and control chain. In our view, This is very closely connected to the provisions on human judgment control which we find in the previous paragraphs, that is paragraphs 35 to 38. We can also support the safeguards included in paragraphs 45 and 46. On paragraph 47, We take note of how important it is to ensure that there are effective internal mechanisms. But we could also go along with a broader formulation and just say effective mechanisms. And finally, on paragraph 48. It is Peru's understanding that this provision is additional to the mandatory provisions that are in the previous paragraphs and it's not simply an added nuance to these. The fact that the formulated elements must be taken into account throughout the design, development and use of laws should in no way water down the importance of other provisions in the text which ensure obligations which the states must take into account. So with these comments, we remain committed to working together with you and all other delegations to make sure we have a balanced text. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Peru for commenting on the text and making proposals. Next on my list is Mozambique, to be followed by the UK, but first the distinguished representative of Mozambique.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would like to thank you, your team for the efforts made the accommodation the difference review expressed for by delegation. Regarding paragraph 39, we support the importance of legal reviews, including where subsequent modification may affect identification, solution and engagement function of the and anticipated effort of system regarding in terms of substantial impact. We believe that may material effect could be could provide the great clarity. Regarding paragraph 41 and 42, we support their retention. States should take appropriate measure to mitigate the risk arising from bias in data, artificial intelligence, model and automation be, while preserving the quality of human judgment. On paragraph 43, we strongly support the principle that responsibility cannot be transferred for machines. Increased autonomy should not create a gap in responsibility or accountability. Regarding paragraph 47, we support the reference to appropriate and effective internal mechanism while allowing each state to determine their implementation in accordance with international legal and institutional framework. Final, regarding paragraph 480, we support its cross-cut nature. However, concerning the expression other possible measures, We believe it will be useful to clarify that such measure would be developed or great by concerns with the framework and the mandate of this group. We believe this formulation could help bring the different position while preserving compliance with international humanitarian law, human judgment, and accountability. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mozambique for stating the positions of his delegation and for commenting on proposals. Next on my list is the United Kingdom to be followed by Spain. But first, the distinguished representative of the UK, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The United Kingdom would like to offer a number of comments on the paragraphs in this section. On paragraph 33, The UK believes that the repositioning of protected as such, as suggested by the US, is a neat solution and better reflects the manner in which IHL operates in respect to civilians rather than civilian objects. Equally, the adjustment of object of attack by means of laws is a sensible clarification. On paragraph 39A, the UK supports the inclusion of legal reviews within the measures. This group has long recognised the important role of legal review of weapons, not only in Guiding Principle E, but also in its reports and working papers, which have considered the lawfulness of use across the life cycle of laws. At the same time, we can support the view that the first sentence of subparagraph should more closely reflect the legal requirements and the language of Guiding Principle E. In our view, the particular value of the sub-paragraph lies in the encouragement of the voluntary exchange of practice in the second sentence. It is in that which we can build international confidence in the standards applied to legal reviews of these systems. We therefore don't see there to be a loss in maintaining a stricter approach to the language in the first sentence. We also note that subparagraph addresses the issue of further development or modification that may warrant further review. Read together, subparagraphs and can therefore reflect both the review of new weapons and the review of weapons that have been modified. The United Kingdom would, however, reiterate its comment that the standard of materiality is more familiar within the discipline of legal review. We would therefore suggest that sub-paragraph read as follows: ensure that any further development of or modifications to existing laws that have a material impact on the operational the functioning of their target, identification, selection and engagement functions, or on their anticipated effects, are reviewed to ensure compliance with IHL. Turning to paragraph 40a, the United Kingdom would ask whether the phrase "including within simulations" is necessary in all circumstances. If anticipated performance can be established by other appropriate means, simulations may not be required in every case. We would therefore suggest the formulation including, when necessary, within simulations. On paragraph 40b, we consider that the approach should remain consistent with the group's wider discussion of measures of control under the human element. The terminology commonly used is command and control. Given that measures of control may operate at different points in the chain of command, it is also important that training, guidance, and instructions apply across that chain, and in particular to those operating laws. We would therefore suggest returning to responsible chain of command and control, with the addition of specific reference to those operating laws, reading as follows, ensuring appropriate guidance, training, and instructions for those in the responsible chain of command and control, in particular for those operating laws. On subparagraph three, and for consistency with other parts of the document, the United Kingdom suggests inserting sufficiently before predictable, and anticipated before effects. We also note that predictability and reliability are already addressed in the first sentence of the subparagraph. In our view, the second sentence should focus on ensuring that performance, behaviour and outputs are explainable to those making decisions over the development and use of the system. The United Kingdom would also like to note a specific concern regarding the term traceable in subparagraph c. None of the terms predictable, explainable and traceable have distinct legal meaning, but they are widely used technical terms and appear in various multilateral and national statements on responsible use. In that context, the term traceable is generally not about tracing a weapon system back to an accountable decision maker. Rather, it concerns the ability to track and reconstruct the lifecycle, data lineage, and decision logic behind an artificial intelligence system's outputs. It is therefore closely related to explainability. With that in mind, while we do not object to retaining the concept where it is tied to explainability, We suggest that the clarity of the text would be improved by referring simply to explainability. On paragraphs 44 and 45, the UK believes that language suggested by Canada to be a sensible suggestion to improve the text in respect to the manner of operation of the legal obligations on states as respects to accountability. and for consistency of language as respect to the law applicable of armed conflict. We also think that the US suggestion on paragraph 45 helpfully clarifies the relationship between the need to maintain accountability and automation bias. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the UK for sharing the positions of her delegation and coming up with proposals for changes in the text. Next on my list is Spain, to be followed by Utrecht University, Panama, Japan and the IHLYI. But first, let me move to Spain. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Before I do anything else, Allow me to make some general comments, once again stating the position of our delegation, which was conveyed in previous statements. We hope that on Friday we'll be able to have a consensus document and fulfill our mandate, a document on the basis of the text that you've submitted to thus the outcome of three years of meetings and with language that has already met a certain degree of consensus and with packages that already bring together different positions. So, at this stage of our work, it does not seem sensible to us to request the deletion of certain paragraphs or to add new nomenclature which substantially amends your proposals. Now, that being said, let's make the following comments. On paragraph 39A and the first sentence on legal reviews, the inclusion of study, development, acquisition or adoption. Now, we know that a good number of delegations have made this request time and again relating to its reference in other protocols. Now, we don't have any problem in including this reference, although we think it's not necessarily immediately relevant to laws. Some delegations have asked for the deletion of sub-paragraph of paragraph 39, but we believe that it should stay in the text to ensure that we do not leave out the possibilities of future development or modifications to laws. It is a safeguard, in our view. On paragraph 40A, on testing and evaluations, We believe that we should simply say conducting testing and evaluation. We understand that some delegations want to pin this down to a specific context, but we're not against this proposed text. And in 40C, we have no particular comments here and we support your proposal. In our delegation's view, we must refer to predictable, explainable and traceable, and we believe that those are cornerstones for compliance with IHL. We agree with the proposed formulation of paragraphs 41 to 47, including the tenses of verbs used in those texts. they must be reflected in terms of accountability and responsibility. And on the final paragraph, 48, the inclusion of other possible measures. Well, we understand your explanation from this morning and other delegations have said this relates to the mandate. Actually, in our view, we believe this really leaves the text wide open, so we'd be open to different proposals. But, Chair, we can support your proposals. We believe it brings us closer to consensus and you can count on our cooperation so that we can work constructively and fulfil our mandate. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for reflecting on our mandate and for proposing text changes. Next on my list is Utrecht University, to be followed by Panama, but first Utrecht University.

Thank you, Chair. I'm delivering this intervention on behalf of the delegation of the Asia Pacific Institute for Law and Security, APILS, and my own delegation, Utrecht University. We welcome the revised language concerning legal reviews in paragraph 39. The paragraph now consolidates the text on legal reviews and separates it from other measures mentioned in subsequent paragraphs taken across the life cycle of laws. We believe the separation is appropriate as the majority of states are under a legal obligation to carry out legal reviews. The use of the word must in conjunction with the phrase, quote, in accordance with their legal obligations under international law in the chapeau acknowledges that many states are under a direct legal obligation to conduct reviews. We welcome the introduction of language mirroring the specific legal obligation in subparagraph A. This has, however, made some of the language in the chapeau redundant. The reference to the study, development, acquisition, and adoption of laws in subparagraph A and the reference to development and modification of laws in subparagraph B already indicate where in the life cycle of laws it is appropriate to conduct legal reviews. Therefore, we suggest deleting from the chapeau the words, quote, as appropriate across the life cycle of laws and. The chapeau would then simply read, "States must, in accordance with their obligations under international law." We consider subparagraph to be a valuable contribution of this group to the evolving practice of legal reviews. It articulates a need to conduct further legal reviews when changes to existing weapons systems result in substantial changes to their functioning. In this subparagraph, we suggest inserting the word continued before the word compliance to further emphasize the lifecycle approach to ensuring legal compliance. We also suggest replacing the reference to IHL at the end of the subparagraph with international law to bring it in line with subparagraph A. So the final clause of subparagraph B would read, are reviewed to ensure continued compliance with international law. In paragraph 40, subparagraph a explains what simulations are intended to achieve. In our view, this subparagraph should indicate the objective of testing and evaluation more generally and then identify simulation as one possible method of testing and evaluation. This can be achieved by minor restructuring. We are also concerned that the deletion of the word variable before environments unduly narrows the testing requirement. It would tolerate testing with respect to a limited range of environments that do not reflect the actual operational uses of the laws. Thus, we would suggest retaining the word variable or replacing it with representative and anticipated. The subparagraph could then read conducting testing and evaluation that can assess their performance within representative and anticipated operational environments including by means of simulations. Chair, delegations hold diverging views about subparagraph c. It contains a number of concepts that many delegations have recognized as important. Some of these concepts have also been reflected in national and international documents relating to the use of military artificial intelligence. Some delegations have, however, suggested that these concepts do not relate to existing IHL obligations. We do not think this is the case. For example, predictability does not appear in IHL instruments as a discrete legal requirement, but as an implicit operational necessity, predictability underpins compliance with a number of principles and rules of IHL. This includes the duty to take precautions and to assess the proportionality of collateral damage, as these presume the ability to foresee the effects of attacks. Other delegations have on previous occasions noted the lack of certainty about the meaning of predictability, reliability, traceability, and explainability, and this is a valid concern. Therefore, we believe that incorporating the substantive requirements of these notions across the various elements of the instrument is more fruitful than condensing them as labels into a single subparagraph here. We also believe that the text in many respects already encapsulates the notions of predictability, reliability, and explainability. Predictability is reflected in paragraph 32, which contains the prohibition to use laws the effects of which cannot be anticipated. There were further references to anticipated effects of laws in some versions of paragraphs 36 and 39 discussed by the group. The ability to anticipate the effects of the laws essentially means predictability. Reliability is distributed across multiple paragraphs. Paragraph 38C seeks to ensure the stability and performance of the system. Paragraph 40A on testing and paragraph 41 regarding biases and data sets also speak to reliability. Explainability is reflected more broadly in paragraph 40, where the chapeau refers to the need for the expected use and anticipated effects of laws to be, quote, understood. Paragraph 45 seeks to ensure the understandability of the capabilities and limitations of laws. Traceability is perhaps the concept least represented in the document. Paragraph 47 deals with effective internal mechanisms for investigation, reporting and appropriate action. This is where traceability would have the greatest relevance operationally. Traceability, therefore, could be incorporated by adding a sentence to paragraph 47. This could read as follows. States should retain records such as operational logs sufficient to enable them to recount and review the functioning of laws. With this amendment, even if consensus on paragraph 40C could not be reached, its substance would be preserved in other parts of the document. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Utrecht University also for pointing out where we find predictability, reliability and traceability elsewhere in the text. Next on my list is Panama, then I have Japan and the IHLYI, but first the distinguished representative of Panama. Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Before launching into my specific comments, I wanted to say that we entirely support the comments made by Spain and other delegations saying that we would not agree with, at this stage of the process, there being requests for deletion of a significant number of the paragraphs, after we have had so many rounds of discussions over the past three years. On the specifics, on paragraph 32, our delegation supports that this paragraph be kept as drafted, given that it reflects and implements the prohibition established by international humanitarian law regarding indiscriminate weapons and indiscriminate attacks. Now on paragraphs 39 and 40, we believe that these are essential requirements guaranteeing or to ensure that there be compliance with international humanitarian law and that this IHL is operational. welcome therefore the changes introduced in paragraph 39a and just like other delegations we also support the maintenance in the text of 39b. Now on paragraph 40a our delegation supports the proposal made by ICRC and We go along with the very large number of states that want keeping the text of 40C unamended as you suggested. And in paragraph 41, we support the proposal made by Peru. Thank you, Chair.

Let me thank the distinguished representative of Panama for viewing the positions of our delegation and for commenting on positions of other delegations and proposals. Next on my list is the distinguished representative of Japan.

On paragraph 34, we agree with the general purpose, but consider that further discussion is needed to be able to implement this paragraph in a way that takes into account the specific features of laws. In this regard, we support proposal by the French delegation of which are incapable of being used, as well as the proposal to adjust the verb as suggested by the delegation of ROK and supported by Canada and others. In paragraph 40, we support the French proposal to insert adequately or sufficiently. We are open to reformulation if they do not change the substance. We found a number of suggestions to be pertinent articulations. I look forward to your revised draft report. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for stating the positions of her delegation. Next on my list is IHLYI. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Ms. Kincho Gamarra, international lawyer and legal advisor on behalf of IHLYI. Regarding Boda 44, ITAOI welcomes a provision in relation to individual accountability because in accordance with 28, IAOI imposes obligations not just to states but also to individuals. That said, we would like to gently share three main reflections on this. First, we must consider that behind the label of private sector, there might be individuals involved in the design, development, programming, testing, operation or technical support of LOS. Their potential individual responsibility should also be considered where their conduct meets the applicable standards of responsibility under international law. Second, the judicialization of individual accountability still faces political challenges related to international cooperation. Despite it being a well-consolidated norm and a cornerstone of international law, those are reflected on the pending cases before the ICC. As mentioned by the ICRC 2024 report on IHL challenges, deliberate violations are far too common, too little and stood on to prevent the recurrence and hold state and non-state perpetrators to account. States must do more to cooperate with international institutions to prevent impunity. However, this is not a pessimistic intervention which led us to our third point, which is that As a consequence of those circumstances, we encourage States to reflect on the meaning behind individual accountability in order to facilitate its effectiveness. As referred by the ICRC commentaries on individual responsibility as a customary IHL norm, we must consider the following points. On the one hand, individuals should be held responsible under international law. for the role in attempting, assisting, facilitating, aiding, abetting, planning, and instigating misuse of means of warfare, including laws, in accordance to ICC, ICTY, ICTR, Statute, among other instruments. And on the other hand, in the case that responsibility is triggered, national regulation should consider the words of the UN Secretary General in the report on the cases the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. Combatants should be held financially liable to their victims under international law where civilians are made the deliberate target of aggression. This implies facilitating claims before civil courts to allow full reparation, as successfully done by some domestic legislation in some states. Accordingly, given the fact that there is already operational challenges to begin due processes for potential individual responsibility, we encourage states that in relation to Part A 47, they should commit with the implementation of national legislation in accordance with the specificity required for the norms, for the forms and types of individual responsibility described above, especially considering that criminal law is guided by the principle of legality and constitutes one of the biggest challenges for judicialization of international humanitarian law these days. Last but not least, as mentioned in our morning intervention in relation to part 39, we also encourage states to consider appropriate oversight and due diligence mechanisms through how the life cycle of laws, including at the stages of research, design, development, testing and deployment, rather than addressing accountability only once such systems are operationally used. Thanks so much.

I thank the distinguished representative of IHLYI for reflecting on responsibility and accountability. We have now come to the end of the speakers list. As I already announced earlier, I would like to proceed as follows, that we stop our discussions now. That allows my team and myself some time to continue working on reviewing the draft report on the basis of the comments we have received from you in the course of this day. And then at 7:30 in room three, Like yesterday evening, we will have informal consultations among high contracting parties with regard to the human element of the text, as at this moment in paragraph 36. And then, I'm afraid, still a little bit of work will have to be done tomorrow morning. With regard to the draft report revision, so I propose that we resume our work at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. So we have a little bit of a longer break and you can have a little bit of extra rest after the informal consultations this evening. And the text we are going to discuss tonight should be in your e-mail box. If not, please report to my team and we will try to get it to you one way or the other. That was it for now. And looking to see the high contracting parties back in room three at 7:30. Thank you very much.