1st Meeting, 38th Session - Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies

So thank you very much.
High Commissioner, for having your time while you are so busy during the council.
We are very honored to welcome the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to open this meeting.
I have a pleasure to giving the floor to Mr.
Vokouk Hi Commissioner for Human Rights.
Hi, Commissioner, you have the floor.
Thank you very much and really great that we finally have a chance again to see each other in person.
I know this has not always been very easy given the financial situation, but I'm glad to you.
I think some of you also participated in the Riga event.
I think it's good that there are obviously now a proper meeting of all the chairs of the treaty bodies.
Um I know that you will also have a more detailed briefing with deputy with my new deputy regarding the financial situation, but perhaps I still want to say a couple of things about the financial situation, even if then the details will be worked out because as you know, the problem is always the liquidity issue.
It's not the budget that gets adopted, it's the issue of liquidity.
Um I mentioned to the ACABQ because we had to defend our budget for the whole system to the ACABQ.
I mean, I don't know if those of you are familiar with the ACB, the ACBU is the administrative committee on budgetary measures.
I mean, before it goes to the Fifth committee.
So it's usually a very important committee for us.
It's composed of stakes.
It is representative, it's experts.
I did mention to them that indeed, given the situation today that we have had many reviews of treaty body reform over many years.
I mean, I remember when I met Louisa Bohr once and she told me when she started and that was it was 20 years ago.
I know that my predecessor Navi Pillay embarked on treaty body reform.
I know that we have had a lot of treaty body reforms over many years.
But it is also true that it is important to have another hard look as you are doing, as we are all doing again at what it is that one could do within the confines of the treaties themselves, meaning that we know that we don't want to change to the treaties themselves obviously because then you open up a Ponoras box.
But what can be done within the confines of the law that allows for what I mean for the simplification, for all the experience that we have had over many years, to be dealt with so that we could have and I did mention this idea of making the ensure that if we have a reform that is taking place, that there should be almost like a firewalling of the treaty body system.
I think it's only the beginning of the conversation also with our financial part of the system, but I did already mention it to the ACABQ last week.
I think it is important that we then I mean, obviously, I know we have further discussions on what we are doing now, but it will be important then to go to the member states with a set of proposals that are there and we have had now a paper in circulation for a while, also benefiting obviously very much from your own experience and your own perspectives, but then it will go to member states.
That's very clear.
Um, but also making constantly the case, as I did just now in my global update to the Human Rights Council, who I had almost half a page on the value of treaty bodies in today's world and what they have been able to do, how even at the judicial level, we have more recognition by some I mentioned, for example, that the Swiss referred to the Swiss Supreme Court has referred to the covenant on civil and political rights 300 times in their Supreme Court decision.
We see and then of course, the jurisprudence that you all develop are a factor that states not courts, I would say, and then governments, but then eventually also regional courts are taking into account.
But it is also true that we hear and you know that we hear also concerns from states that sometimes they present reports and they present again reports to a different DT party.
We hear how they feel about the need for further simplification and the reform and this is where we are coming from the proposals that we have all been working through.
Yes, it will be very important that we have then this presentation to member states and hopefully clear recognition that these are quasi judicial organs and quasi judicial organs, if you take away their power, we have a problem.
I mean, in terms of liquidity and the budget, I mean, it's not so much the budget, it is the liquidity issue and the liquidity we have been at pains to explain not only to the system, but also Um, I mean, the Secretary-General is very much aware of it, that we need to find ways and means to ensure that the treaty body system can function in the way it was foreseen, but on the basis of a reform.
I think that's essentially, I know that there are lots of details that you have seen and I know that they are also being worked through as you go through it, but it will be very important to make sure that through this, as I call it, a grand bargain, a reformed system with the expectation that you will be protected from the troubles that we're going through at the moment.
That's a bit the idea behind all of this.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
No, I think our chairs will have many questions.
But at the outset, I want to make just one question.
Thank you for your working paper and also thank you for mentioning the financial side, your willingness to talk to the UN to secure the finance for treaty bodies.
I'm happy to hear that.
Um, while I'm looking at the working paper, this is kind of ideas for the future of the treaty body, but our immediate concern is just next year.
The last two years, we've been suffering from serious reduction of our meeting times and lack of resources, et cetera, but we cannot continue next year.
It seems like we don't have a very bright outlook for the next year.
I just wonder if you have any outlook or any measures or plans for the next year.
That's one question.
I open the floor to the chairs for the questions.
Yes, Mr.
Cott, Mike.
Thank you for being with us.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mr.
High Commissioner.
Just to follow up on our chair's question, Um, in my committee, sir, we have difficulty in making the direct connection between the financial situation, which, as you said, is a liquidity crisis and the reform process.
I mean, how the two are related.
Because if we change or we don't change our ways, how would that affect the liquidity crisis? That we are not really clear.
That would be my added comment.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Frashiri, please.
Thank you, A.
It is a really pleasure.
A very short comment and a short question as well.
I am Ermdrashie.
I'm vice chair of the committee of Migrant Workers, and I'm also a law professor.
My comment will be that This issue of protecting the treaty bodies is a stand that I think it is worth advancing with various interlocutory stakeholders within the UN system, but also with states.
Because at the very core of the UN, when we look at what does UN do that other organizations whether regional multilateral NGOs don't, I'll point out that one is the Security Council functions and second is the human rights protections done by the treaty bodies.
If we start tinkering with this particular mechanism or set of of treaty bodies here, then it's pretty much looks like we are cutting the branch of the tree that we sit on.
This is, I think a stand that it is worth making in front or in conversations with other interlocutors.
That's a comment to you.
It's a comment that I meant to cheer you about the work that you have to do with other parties.
The question is, you know, When we look at other reforms, DU is always in the detail and I'm just wondering in conversations with the Secretary-General or other senior stakeholder states as well, what's our number one concern about the treaty bodies? What is it really that they want to see resolved? Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Madam Ha Aida.
Thank you.
Thank you Chairman.
Good morning.
Hi, Commissioner.
I really think it is very important to root always what we are discussing in the fact that we had a process long of more than ten years, as you were rightly saying.
We seem to always look at what's, what's before us as a reaction to the liquidity crisis.
We have to backtrack and just remember that we had a co facilitator 2020 review process that had led to some decision by the treaty body chairs of which I was not member, but vision set out by the chairs a few years ago and there were many issues before the liquidity crisis hit us so severely.
If every time we are able to come back to the root causes, we'll be able to understand better that business as usual is impossible because state parties don't want it to continue.
The same state party who have elaborated those conventions are complaining.
We have to listen.
The system was built like 40 years, 60 years ago, doesn't fit anymore today.
So I think for me to help us also vis-à-vis our own committee, respective committee, we must constantly present this paper, whatever process will go in answering almost a 20 years reflection on how we can perform better and be more fit for purpose, and also assess impact, more important DSS impact.
So I just wanted to say that we don't do that enough.
We constantly speak about liquidity crisis.
It makes people immediately feel like, Oh, I'm going to be governed only by this issue.
I'm more important than this issue.
So that is my proposal, including for our own respective committee.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'll give the floor Vice Chair, Madam Saran, please.
Good morning.
Hi, Commissioner, and thank you so much for joining us in spite of a very busy schedule, so we're very grateful to have this very brief interaction with you.
Just before you walked into the room, I had an opportunity to brief our chairs informally on some of the concerns that have been expressed by my colleague in Committee on economic, social cultural rights.
I would request the Secretariat with whom I've shared my statement, if you could just kindly have a look at it because that details the concerns that my committee has regarding this whole liquidity crisis, budget crisis, as well as the reform process that is underway.
Hi, Commissioner, you would recall that I had also interacted with you during the RG retreat and I had specifically requested that what efforts have the office done to interact with state parties regarding this liquidity crisis.
I'm happy to be informed that the ACBQre engaging with them.
And the point I want to make is one, that these efforts for reforms, of course, are constantly underway, but the treaty body system was created by state parties, and therefore, I think they're the ones who should be first approached and engaged, whether it's through ACABQ Fifth Committee, UNGA, or even the EcoSoc in the case of SSC, because it's EcoSOc that determines it.
I think it also requires an engagement with them.
Because finally, any a thing relating to the regular budget must actually come with engagement and full approval of the state parties.
Secondly, in our efforts to strengthen the treaty body system, we should not take steps that will either undermine it, compromise its integrity and independence, or end up weakening or dismantling it.
That's my second concern.
That is something again I request if you would kindly have a look at my statement.
Finally, third, of course, High Commissioner, is that this point that has been mentioned by other colleagues that how does the reform process address the liquidity crisis and what role does the treaty body what mandate do we have? Ultimately, the mandate rests with the straight parties who created the convention.
My concern is that we should not create in our desire for reforms, not end up actually one weakening the process and changing the core mandate of the substance of the conventions.
Because if we do that, it will once again require the approval of the state parties and we cannot do anything without their approval.
Those are the basic points I thought I'd draw your attention to.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madame Romeo, please.
Welcome.
Thank you very much for being with us today, Mr.
High Commissioner.
Also regarding the liquidity crisis and understanding the very direct impact that it has had on all treaty bodies.
I wanted to recall that for the subcommittee on prevention of Torture, last year, this meant that our core mandated activities, which as you well know, is preventive visiting was cut in half from eight visits to four.
And this year, almost half of the year, we have conducted only two visits.
So I would just like to reiterate that any proposals for future reforms which we have been discussing should aim not only to achieve predictability of the periodic reviews, but also to achieve the same level of predictability for the visits of the subcommittee on prevention of Torture.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I see the clock and we have only 10 minutes left before High Commissioner has to leave.
So please do shorten your questions so that we can listen to High Commissioner's response.
Madam King.
Welcome.
Hi, Commissioner.
Sometimes personally, I had initially expected given the reality in which human rights conditions are rapidly deteriorating in many parts of the world due to the unstable circumstance, including war in civil, humanitarian crisis, and political complexts, the prior for three D body would be to S common direction and discussion how we should Lisbon correctively.
Of course, I fully recognizing the seriousness of the financial difficulty facing the United Nations and the treaty body system.
However, I wonder whether it is appropriate or urgent to discuss changing and reform of the treaty body system primarily or almost solely against the backdrop of financial constraint.
From my perspective, reform should not be driven only by budgetary pressure.
It should be guided by the purpose of the treaty body system itself to protect the right holders, refer to emerging and worsening human rights situation and strengthening accountability.
I am also concerned that the United Nations disability inclusion strategy appeared to have been only marginally deflected in the UN AT initiative.
In my view, this risk having a negative impact on the direction of a change in reform within the treaty party system.
If disability inclusion is not placed at the center of the UN reform, then the reform process is that may reproduce the exclusion.
For the region, I would like to hear your position the United Nations disability inclusion strategy and how you believe a disability inclusion should be meaningfully integrated into the future reform of the treat body system.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much.
The last question will be by Mr.
Juan Pablo.
Mr.
Chair, good morning.
Hi, Commissioner.
I would like to convey a question that sums up the main concerns of the CD in the context of these discussions for potential future reforms.
How can we ensure that in pursuing efficiency and harmonization, we do not lose specific strengths of mandates such as those of the CD or the SPT, whose work goes well beyond periodic reporting and relies heavily on urgency, prevention, and protection functions? How do you see those specificities being safeguarded in this reform process? Okay.
Thank you very much.
Now I will invite High Commissioner for your response.
Is there anyone else I think everybody.
Well, look, first of all, I appreciate very much that we have this exchange, and we need to keep having it.
Because I think there's a number of misunderstandings even from the type of questions or the comments that I hear from you.
Let me just offer you my perspective.
We had the Pact for the future.
The Pact for the future, and it was because not least of a lot of discussions with member states at the time, recognized that there is a need to strengthen the human rights pillar.
I can't remember exactly the wording, but it did talk about the fact that the human rights pillar as a whole did not get sufficient support from, if you like the UN system.
I think there was a very clear recognition and there was an assessment that needed to be done in order to ensure how we can strengthen that pillar.
This was in 2024, so it was well before the liquidity crisis that we are facing today.
There was a recognition that the Human Rights pillar absolutely needs to be strengthened.
We have been at pains to point this out to the member states themselves who have adopted that, right? Last year, we had UN 80 or the start of UN 80 and UN 80, because frankly, in any system, in any organization, be it the judiciary, be it non judiciary, be it operations, we always have to see what it is that we can do better in order to deliver precisely to the mandates that we are given.
There's no doubt about this.
This is not about making us less effective, it's actually making us more effective and more efficient.
We always have to have a self critical look at this.
When I was asked by the Secretary-General to submit, if you like, the human rights part of UN 80, We had a very long document that looked at each and every aspect of the human rights ecosystem, including how it is involved with the peace and security pillar, with the development pillar, also how we are interacting with the humanitarian side, but also at the system itself.
It is clear that when it comes to the system itself, that the vast majority of decisions don't lie with us, they lie with member states.
I mean, reform of the Human Rights Council is not something we can do because we don't have that function.
Reform of treaty bodies is not something we can do because at the end of the day, it's the state parties.
Reform of many other things, even reforms internally so called Workstream three is about which mandates could eventually come together.
Even that is a member state issue because at the end of the day it ends up with them.
What very conveniently happens when you make any proposal on anything, you will immediately become the scapegolat.
But the intention from our side has always been to do our utmost looking at the whole of the system to see what we can do in the current environment, where we have lots of geopolitical tensions, where we have sometimes a questioning of even of the fundaments, how we can make sure that we have whatever possibility there is to not only, if you like, reform because reform is maybe not even the right word, but to be responsive to the demands that we have on ourselves and to see what more can we do.
The last TT body reform took ten years.
Some would say it wasn't ambitious enough, that it produced something, but it didn't go far enough.
Some would say that, in fact, if you talk to member states, many of them feel that not least heavy reporting requirements, because of the fact that we couldn't digitize in the way that we should, that the reform didn't go far enough.
Um, so in a way that irrespective of liquidity, financial, whatever, there's always been a need for all of us to find a way to enhance within the confines of the law what we could do to deliver better.
And that's the intention.
Of course, I mean, the subcommittee on prevention of Torture, the enforced disappearance is one which have, in a way, very specific mandate because it's also country visits has always been one where the fact that the budget doesn't allow for more visits is exactly what I mentioned to member states.
If on the one hand, we imagine a world without torture and on the other hand, you don't give us the resources to do precisely this from a prevention perspective, you will have to pay the price for it because you will have more torture as a result.
The same, by the way, on CETA.
I mean, I can go through all of that on economic, social culture, on racial discrimination on civil I mean, on all on the migrant workers on uh but I mean, just to say, if, for instance, your conclusion the comment the General Comment 40, which we have a lot of discussions within the UN about how we can ensure frankly, the implementation of the General Comment 40, and sometimes I find that the system doesn't even pick up what is being developed.
By the way, one good thing coming out of UN eight is the creation of a human rights group that I'm leading with all the system, which means the whole UN system, the Secretariat entities, and everyone else because we want to make sure that they understand the normative side and they understand the jurisprudential developments.
They understand all what you are doing on a daily basis from the treaty body, not only in the state reports scrutiny and the recommendations that you make, but also through the general comments that they are actually using it to the fullest possible way.
Um, and that's a huge advantage because for the first time we have an internal coordination mechanism through the human rights group that tries to do precisely that because I think I will be your strongest advocate, if you like, of the normative system and the standards that you are developing so that it feeds into the different processes within the UN.
Um, it is clear that What we are currently looking at, the type of proposals are another uptake on the type of things that could make us all more effective and efficient, including through digitalization, but also through these clustering the regional level and the decentralization, if you like, of some sorts, while still making sure that we have plenary sessions, of course, where the concluding observations can adopt it.
It's one way and in particular, the digitalization of the reporting what is it called the submission, the online reporting.
But it's a tool, if you like, that I mean, it has got nothing to do with the liquidity crisis because we would have to do that anyway and you would have to respond in particular to some of what member states have asked us to do.
So it's not because of the liquidity crisis that we have here and 80, it is because we anyway have to do that job.
Yes, it is exacerbated by the fact that member states are looking at everything these days and finding ways and means to improve ourselves.
The thing is change can happen.
I mean, if we don't embrace change, change will happen, but it will be imposed.
Then there are things that we don't know what could happen and that I'm very worried about.
I want us to be proactive, to be forward looking, to be responsive, and to advance it so that it's not ending up in a situation where we have even more financial problems in the future, where we end up with more difficulties, where then decisions will be taken that are beyond us.
That's my issue.
It is, if you like, it's an attempt to preempt what could otherwise come and could otherwise affect massively the treaty body system, which none of us want.
In me, I think I've told you many times that I have been dealing with treaty bodies for the last 35 years.
You have been one of our greatest supporters on so many fronts.
In my previous professional life, Um, I followed you in the 80s already very carefully, including on the legal doctrinal side.
So we cannot afford the world cannot afford to lose the effectiveness of the treaty bodies.
But at the same time, there are issues, and I think the proposals that have been worked through are also coming not just from us, they're coming from, you know, decade long experience.
They have gone through, I don't know how many iterations of treaty body, maybe the reform is not the right word of an updating of treaty body mechanisms and processes, and they are not actually provoking a change in the treaties.
What they do is a rearrangement, it's operating modalities that are changing that we think can be a good way of having a very honest discussion with member states to say, look, You need these treaty bodies.
We need to make sure that we find a way to also once this reform has gone through, that you then commit to financing it in the fullest possible way and that it's firewalled a bit like what is happening with, with the ICJ, for example, that is actually really recognized in its own right.
But it's very difficult to do it when at the same time you have some member states and quite a lot of them who keep saying that the reporting requirements are too heavy that they can't deal with it anymore and when all these issues are happening, so we need to find, if you like, a way out of that conundrum by offering a what I think is a fairly straightforward way of working in the future, and then making it very clear when we have our discussions both with the ACBQ and with the FF committee that there is full recognition that this needs to be happening in the way that it should.
We didn't last time when you had the reform two years ago, we didn't get resources resources for it, which I regret it very much and I also regret it publicly.
I think we need to make sure that we prepare it in such a way that there is a clear correlation between a reform effort and the financial sustainability of it.
If that's not happening, yes, we actually need to then the moment of truth is coming, which we also need to accept and find a way precisely to manage an otherwise very difficult situation.
But of course, at the end of the day it's member states.
But I can also tell you, whenever we have discussions with the member states, whenever we come up with any proposals, you will always have different interests.
You will always have those who would say, we can't go ahead with any change.
But that has the effect of weakening the system as a whole.
I'm very worried about that.
That's frankly where we are.
There is some.
It can't take us another ten years to come up with proposals that are workable because then we will have lost and then things will have happened that will have made essentially the whole system.
Frankly, irrelevant, and I'm worried about that.
Irrespective of the former processes that you have in place.
The form we can all talk about what the law doesn't mean anything if you don't have the backing of it through the finance and the commitment that you also need from the political level.
I also hope with the global alliance, by the way, the global alliance, we didn't really talk about it, but the global alliance is also an attempt to mobilize again support for human rights, which includes, of course, importantly, the treaty bodies, as something that creates this expectation that the system has to work for the people that we serve.
I can tell you, I mean, I know this in your work is the hope for many people in so many countries.
We don't emphasize this enough where the work that you're doing has indeed, they expect this to be done and we need to bring out those voices as well.
There is also a little bit this broadening, if you like, the tent, broadening the support base, but also giving a voice to the ones who often we are not hearing enough.
I mean, treaty bodies respond to very concrete expectations from survivors from victims all around the world on a daily basis and the expectation is that they deliver.
But we deliver in a way that adapts.
I mean, as you said, it's not about, I mean, the treaty bodies were created 60 years, 40 60 I mean, and different but over 60 years ago.
If they don't adapt, there will be a problem, and so we are trying to adapt.
Outside the liquidity issue, this has got nothing to do with the liquidity issue.
But of course, we also hope that there will be a benefit for us to make the case that on the financial side, yes, we want them to recognize that the system that we have all gone through now where sessions are not guaranteed, where visits cannot take place is unacceptable.
We need to make that absolutely clear.
Um So in a way, it is, I think I mentioned it a couple of times.
It's a bit of a grand bargain.
Yes, we will do whatever we can to simplify, digitalize, do things.
But then the expectation is that system is sustainability to be financed because otherwise, what would happen is at the national level, you take away money from the judiciary when you want to weaken the judiciary, and we need to make almost that case.
I think you have heard me say it in meetings also with member states.
I mean, there is a fundamental issue, of of sustainability of a system that has proven its value, that shows that it's adaptable and responsive to concerns, but that keeps the fundamental functions and, you know, the obligations that state parties themselves have accepted.
But yes, in a way that is responsive to the current times and to the modern world so that we are able to do precisely that.
That's the rationale.
Don't see it entirely from a liquidity perspective.
That's not the idea.
It's not meant to be a response to liquidity.
It's meant to be a response to the broader world that we have out there.
We all have to change because otherwise change will come and it may not be what we want.
In fact, it would most certainly not be what we want.
Any positive prospect for next year? I don't even know we have received 60% on the liquidity for this year.
We hope that we will get more, but I don't even know how much.
But I decided that we will go ahead with the second session.
I mean, I took some risk, but yeah, and then we will see if suddenly there's a surprise and we get the funding, and we'll hopefully be able to do more, but it is an issue of a constant and I cannot predict I cannot predict what will happen, frankly with the floor.
Microphone grand bargain several times now.
Can you tell us between whom this bargain going on? Because again, if it's a give and take on the issue of financial crisis, we know as a fact that two member states of the United Nations responsible for 42% of the United Nations budget are in arrears.
Again, who are we bargaining with? Thank you.
It's an issue of reform within the confines of what is possible, and then it's to tell and it's not to those two member states, it's to the ACABQ and the Fifth committee to make sure that the UN Secretariat, the financial side of the house that we're doing this, we expect that the funding is or the resources are carved out so that a reform system works.
That's the idea.
It's not with this or that member state, it's, it's with the system.
What am particular recommendation for state parties? I think it's good to show, if I may, this is of course, and this is, I understand a public webcast.
I'm not sure I should tell you what you should tell members.
I think it is important that I think it is for all of us, for the system as a whole to constantly show the impact that the system has on you know, people on situations, that this is on the system as a whole.
As I said, I mean, I mean, all of you have been working on areas that affect the system as a whole, even the UN country teams, how they are engaging because sometimes it's not just the UPR, it's also the treaty body reform and I keep pointing this out, including to some of our colleagues on the UN country teams that it's UPR very important, but it is the treaty bodies and it's the follow up to the treaty bodies that is key.
You know, whenever we have a presence on the ground, we make sure that there is this follow up and we are almost the motor of implementation.
I think it's important, this is a constant effort on the part of all of us to make sure that the value, the impact is demonstrated.
The other one is to be listening to member states and that you are in listening mode also on their concerns.
Because if I have member states and I have had them approach us, and I'm sure they have also approached you, they believe in the system, they want the system to work, but they have a number of concerns.
The concerns have a lot to do with simplification with harmonization and various things.
I think there is a way to come towards them and be also clear, yes, we hear you, we are going to be together in responding to that.
Then I think you come in and say, yes, fine.
We are very willing to be as adaptable and flexible as possible.
But you also need to make sure that the system is not crippled by the fact that you suddenly then have, again, an impossible situation to manage what the treaty bodies are supposed to deliver.
There is a little bit that yes, responsiveness, but also a clear expectation that this has to be financed.
And prioritized.
I mean, we have prioritized it in my own in the wiggle room that I have, which is not much, I have prioritized because, of course, you could also say, why didn't you give two visits to the two different parts of the system.
We have, in a way prioritized the sessions, for example, for the treaty bodies.
I mean, and this was because you are a statutory organs, that's the argument.
Statutory organs, we need to deliver to this.
But it has come at the expense of other things.
There's no doubt about this.
But we don't want to constantly be put into this situation and end up as the scapegoat for everyone.
Because as I mentioned to you, the unhappiness is everywhere.
It's not just you.
I can tell you every part of the system is unhappy, including member states who are asking for when they are pen holders of certain mandates, they insist that their mandate has to be absolutely implemented without any curtailing of it and that makes it very difficult.
At some stage, everyone needs to realize we are in a different boat.
Let's find the best way within what we can do to move ahead and do things.
I think that's really the spirit within which we have to approach.
As I said, I mean, I do fear that change can come in ways that we don't want it to come if we don't change ourselves.
By the way, it includes my office.
We have done this effort on more stronger regional presence, but also reforms within the system.
I mean, we have done quite a lot of things ourselves with a lot of pain.
I mean, my colleagues will tell you that they didn't like a lot of the things, but we had to do it.
Anyway, good luck and we will be together in this.
There's no doubt about that.
Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your time here and spending more time than expected and your strong statement.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye bye.
Thank you.