H.E. Dr. Hisham Al – Alawi, Ambassador of Iraq with guests during performances. Fighting Terrorism with CultureBy Roy Lie Atjam.
The Hague, 5 September 2018. Under the auspices of H.E. Dr. Hisham Al-Alawi, Ambassador of the Republic of Iraq, a cultural evening was organized at the Chancellery of Iraq in The Hague. Ambassador Al-Alawi cordially welcomed the diverse audience. He related there are various reasons for organizing a cultural evening. One is the latest success of Iraq Security forces in combating terrorism and barbarism. Culture (music) has the potential to promotes understanding.
Iraq is not just a country of explosions, it is also not just a country of violence and problems. However, music has proven to be an integral part of Iraqi culture. Hence, Ambassador Hisham Al-Alawi invited the audience to enjoy the informal lecture and concert of Iraqi music.
For additional Naldo Peverelli’s images, please open the link below: https://www.flickr.com/photos/109407424@N02/albums/72157673274439518Iraq Maqam singer Mr. Ali Al -Jadah.
The cultural evening was about a different side of Iraq, an ancient people, part of a great civilization from the Cradle of Civilization. What has been presented on 5 September was music that goes back thousands of years, music made on instruments like the flute, derback tambourine and so on.
So, the cultural evening featured Iraqi history and music. Special guests were Dr. Khahazal Al-Majidi who delivered a discourse on music and singing in Mesopotamia. He elaborated on the role of music and song back in Mesopotamia. Dr. Khahazal Al Majidi is a historian, dramatist, writer and poet.
Dr. Khahazal Al Majidi was accompanied by Mr. Sattar Al-Saadi who explained the role of art and rhythm in Mesopotamia, the Sumerian and Babylonian civilisation.
Dr. Khahazal Al-Majidi, Iraqi historian, dramatist, writer and poet.
Further on the program, showcasing of the many moods of music from several communities within the land which is now Iraq. Mr. Sattar Al-Saadi performed a piece on the derback entitled Theatre of Learning. The derback is an instrument originally made of clay and fish leather. An essential element in an Arab orchestra(percussion) Sattar Al-Saadi further played on an authentic Iraqi flute and also on one he made of PVC when he first arrived as a refugee in the Netherlands.
Additionally, the duo Sattar Al-Saadi, flute and Caroline Devile played Sinking Ship, written after an experience in Sattar Al Saadi’ life.
After a short break, the program continued with a concert brimming over with positive Iraqi vibrations. The trio: Caroline Devile piano and song, Sattar Al-Saadi flute, derback and tambourine and the renowned veteran Iraq Maqam singer Mr. Ali Al -Jadah (78) who stole the show with his voice full of vigour and spirit graced the concert. Interesting to note that from September 6-10, 2018 the First International Maqom Festival has taken place in the city of Shakhrisabz, Uzbekistan.
To the delight of the audience, the trio performed popular folk songs. The audience was elated! Everyone left the concert in high spirit.
The Ambassador of Morocco, His Excellency Abdelouahab Bellouki, Mr. Amokrane Mourad, Chargé d’affaires of the Embassy of Algeria, the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia, His Excellency Abdulaziz Abohaimed and Ambassador Al-Alawi.
It has been a veritable Iraqi evening; head- and staff of diplomatic missions, Iraqis residing in the Netherlands and friends of Iraq attended the event.
ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rules that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to BangladeshToday, 6 September 2018, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court, composed of Judge Péter Kovács, Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut and Judge Reine Adélaïde Sophie Alapini-Gansou, decided by majority that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over the alleged deportation of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh.
This ruling was delivered following a request submitted by the Prosecutor pursuant to article 19(3) of the Statute, who argued that, although the coercive acts underlying the alleged deportation of members of the Rohingya people occurred on the territory of Myanmar (which is a State not party to the Statute), the Court may nonetheless exercise its jurisdiction, since an element of this crime (the crossing of a border) occurred on the territory of Bangladesh (which is a State party to the Statute).
The Chamber found that it has the power to entertain the Prosecutor’s request under article 119(1) of the ICC Rome Statute, as well as pursuant to the principle of la compétence de la compétence or Kompetenz‑Kompetenz – a well-established principle of international law according to which any international tribunal has the power to determine the extent of its own jurisdiction.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that Myanmar is not a party to the Statute, the Chamber noted that, while the Court has objective international legal personality, its jurisdiction must still be determined in accordance with the confines of the Statute.
In relation to the central question contained in the Prosecutor’s request, the Chamber decided, first, that article 7(1)(d) of the Statute contains two separate crimes (namely forcible transfer and deportation) and, second, that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if either an element of a crime mentioned in article 5 of the Statute or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a State that is party to the Statute under article 12(2)(a) of the Statute.
The Chamber ruled on this basis that the Court has jurisdiction over the crime against humanity of deportation allegedly committed against members of the Rohingya people. The reason is that an element of this crime (the crossing of a border) took place on the territory of a State party to the Statute (Bangladesh). The Chamber further found that the Court may also exercise its jurisdiction with regard to any other crime set out in article 5 of the Statute, such as the crimes against humanity of persecution and/or other inhumane acts.
The Prosecutor, Mrs. Fatou Bensouda, must take the legally binding ruling of the Chamber into account as she continues with her preliminary examination concerning the crimes allegedly committed against the Rohingya people. In this respect, the Chamber determined that such a preliminary examination must be concluded within a reasonable time.
Judge Perrin de Brichambaut appended a partially dissenting opinion to the decision solely based on procedural grounds. Judge Perrin de Brichambaut is of the view that articles 19(3) and 119(1) of the Statute are inapplicable and that the principle of la compétence de la compétence cannot serve as an alternative basis for the Chamber to provide a ruling. According to Judge Perrin de Brichambaut, rendering the ruling requested by the Prosecutor would amount to an advisory opinion, which the Court is not allowed to do. For these reasons, Judge Perrin de Brichambaut believes that the Court cannot rule on its jurisdiction in relation to the alleged deportation of members of the Rohingya people from Myanmar to Bangladesh at this stage, but that it remains open to the Prosecutor to present a request for authorisation of an investigation to a Pre-Trial Chamber under article 15 of the Statute.
Decision on the “Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute” & PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARC PERRIN DE BRICHAMBAUT
On the picture Mechanism Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz.
Arusha, 5 September 2018 – On 3 September 2018, Rwandan authorities executed arrest warrants issued by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and took into custody Maximilien Turinabo, Anselme Nzabonimpa, Jean de Dieu Ndagijimana, Marie RoseFatuma and Dick Prudence Munyeshuli. The five accused will be transferred to the seat of the Mechanism in Arusha, Tanzania. The arrest warrants were issued by the Judge of the Mechanism after confirmation on 24 August 2018 of an indictment filed by the Mechanism Office of the Prosecutor. The indictment was kept under seal pending the successful arrest of the accused, and has been made public today with redactions to protect witnesses.
The indictment in the Turinabo et al. case alleges that the five accused are responsible for contempt of court, incitement to commit contempt and knowing violation of court orders, interfering with the administration of justice at the Mechanism and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The Office of the Prosecutor alleges that Maximilien Turinabo, Anselme Nzabonimpa, Jean de Dieu Ndagijimana and Marie Rose Fatuma, directly and through others, offered bribes and exerted pressure to influence the evidence of protected witnesses in the Ngirabatware case. The Office of the Prosecutor further alleges that Dick Prudence Munyeshuli and Maximilien Turinabo disclosed protected information regarding protected witnesses in knowing violation of protective measures ordered by the ICTR and Mechanism. The alleged aim of these efforts was to secure the reversal of Augustin Ngirabatware’s conviction by the ICTR, as affirmed by the Mechanism’s Appeals Chamber for direct and public incitement to commit genocide, instigating genocide and aiding and abetting genocide and his sentence of 30 years of imprisonment.
In relation to the arrest, Mechanism Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz stated:
“I wish to express our gratitude to the Rwandan authorities for promptly executing the Mechanism arrest warrants and apprehending the five accused. The Office of the Prosecutor continues to enjoy excellent cooperation with the Prosecutor-General of Rwanda, Mr. Jean Bosco Mutangana, and other Rwandan authorities. My Office underscores our determination to stand against all efforts to interfere with witnesses and the proper administration of justice, in accordance with our mandate from the United Nations Security Council. We are fully committed to safeguarding the integrity of all proceedings before the Mechanism, ICTR and ICTY, in particular by ensuring the protection of witnesses. The confirmation of our indictment and arrests of the five accused this week are visible demonstrations of that commitment. ”
On the picture Ambassador Venu Rajamony during India Independence Day’s celebrations.
“The Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965” India’s position before the International Court of Justice, The Hague today.
Oral Proceedings on the Request for an Advisory Opinion by the United Nations General Assembly.
India today told the International Court of Justice that analysis of historical facts and consideration of the legal aspects associated therewith conform that sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago has been and continues to be with Mauritius.
Presenting the position of India in the Oral Proceedings before the ICJ on the Request for an Advisory Opinion by the United Nations General Assembly in the matter concerning “The Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ” India’s Ambassador Venu Rajamony said the historical survey of facts concerning colonization and the process of decolonization indicates that the Chagos Archipelago throughout the pre- and post-colonial era has been part of the Mauritian territory.
These islands came under the colonial administration of the United Kingdom as part of Mauritian territory. The understanding reached in November 1965 between Mauritius and the United Kingdom for the retention of Chagos by the United Kingdom for defence purposes and return thereof to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes, is also in itself evidence that Mauritius has been and continues to be the sovereign nation for the Chagos Archipelago.
Thus, the historical aspects of the matter in question do clearly establish the Chagos Archipelago being part of the Mauritian territory to the exclusion of the sovereignty of any other State.
Ambassador Venu Rajamony said the legal aspects should root themselves in the historical facts, behaviour of the nations concerned, and the consideration of the issue by relevant administrative and judicial institutions.
The United Nations is the highest and most relevant institution in matters affecting nations and the international courts and tribunals are the most relevant judicial institutions. Before the independence of Mauritius, the United Nations, in December 1960, recognizing the ardent desire of the peoples of the world to end colonialism; believing in the need of ending all practices of segregation and discrimination associated with the colonialism; convinced of the right of all peoples to full freedom and of the integrity of their national territory, solemnly proclaimed the necessity of a speedy and unconditional end of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). This resolution declared any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country, as incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
However, detachment of the Chagos Archipelago still took place in November 1965. The United Nations reacted in December 1965 to the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago by adopting resolution 2066 (XX) entitled “Question of Mauritius”, calling on the United Kingdom to fully implement Resolution 1514 (XV). The resolution obligated the United Kingdom to complete the decolonization of Mauritius and report the same to the General Assembly.
The Arbitral Tribunal constituted by agreement between Mauritius and UK in its Award dated 18 March 2015, ruled that the undertakings of the United Kingdom with respect to: the fishing rights of Mauritius in the waters of Chagos Archipelago; the eventual return of the Archipelago to Mauritius and; the benefit of mineral and oil resources in and near the Archipelago, are legally binding undertakings. Further, by declaring as legally binding the undertaking of the United Kingdom to return the Archipelago to Mauritius, the Award has determined the legal obligation of the United Kingdom to return the Archipelago to Mauritius.
Ambassador Venu Rajamony said the process of decolonization of Mauritius remains incomplete both technically and in substance as long as the Chagos Archipelago continues to be under colonial control.
Assistance Requested by the United Kingdom Regarding Toxic Chemical Incident in Amesbury
THE HAGUE, Netherlands—4 September 2018— The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) transmitted today to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) the report of the OPCW’s mission to provide requested technical assistance in regard to an incident in Amesbury on 30 June 2018.
The results of the analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that intoxicated two individuals in Amesbury and resulted in one fatality.
The toxic chemical compound displays the same toxic properties of a nerve agent. It is also the same toxic chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the poisoning of Mr. Sergei Skripal, Ms. Yulia Skripal, and Mr. Nicholas Bailey on 4 March 2018 in Salisbury.
The UK’s delegation to the OPCW requested that the Technical Secretariat share the report with all States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and to make the summary of the report publicly available.
The Director-General, H.E. Ambassador Fernando Arias, thanked all of the OPCW designated laboratories that supported the technical assistance request for their swift and thorough analysis.
On the picture, ICC Prosecutor H.E. Mrs. Fatou Bensouda.Al-Bashir case: ICC Appeals Chamber hearing submissions on legal matters raised by Jordan from 10 to 14 September 2018
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court will hold five days of hearings, from 10 to 14 September 2018, in relation to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II on the non- compliance by Jordan with the request by the Court for the arrest and surrender of Mr Omar Al-Bashir.
The Appeals Chamber will receive oral submissions on legal matters raised in this appeal from representatives of Jordan, the ICC Prosecutor, and amici curiae including representatives of the African Union, the League of Arab States and international law professors.
The Minister of Defence of Japan, Mr. Itsunori Onodera and OPCW Director General, H.E. Fernando Arias González.
The Hague, Netherlands — 4 September 2018 — The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), H.E. Ambassador Fernando Arias, and the Minister of Defence of Japan, Mr Itsunori Onodera, met today at the OPCW Headquarters in The Hague.
The Director-General briefed the Defence Minister on the progress of the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, OPCW’s continuing activities in Syria, as well as current and future priorities and challenges of the Organisation such as achieving universality of the Convention, upgrading the OPCW Laboratory, and intensifying international cooperation and assistance.
The Director-General commended Japan’s active role in global chemical disarmament including the steady progress in destroying chemical weapons abandoned by Japan on the territory of China. He also expressed appreciation for Japan’s generous contributions to the OPCW’s Syria Trust Fund and a range of other activities.
Ambassador Arias stated, “I look forward to working with Japan and other OPCW Member States to fulfil the Chemical Weapons Convention’s ultimate goal of a world permanently free of chemical weapons”.
Minister Onodera recognised the importance of the OPCW’s activities for a world both free of chemical weapons and of the threat of their use, and also expressed his intention to actively cooperate with OPCW including reinforcement of its capabilities.
The Defence Minister was accompanied by Japan’s Permanent Representative to the OPCW, H.E. Mr Hiroshi Inomata, and other members of the delegation.
The Embassy of Republic of Rwanda in The Hague participated in Embassy Festival on 1 September that took place in The Hague in the Netherlands.
H. E. Mr. Laurence Lenayapa, Ambassador of Kenya, Ambassador Karabaranga and H.E. Andrea Gustovic-Eregovac, Ambassador of Croatia.
The cultural world trip that this festival offered fits in seamlessly with the international City of The Hague.
One out of three inhabitants have roots abroad, making it the city that brings the world together. The Hague is also the embassy city of the Netherlands.
The Embassy Festival showcased the cultural richness of around 60 countries at the Lange Voorhout.
The result of this was a colourful festival program with lots of dance and music: the universal language that ties us all together and the Rwandan Embassy once again put up a special programme for its visitors, including traditional dances and traditional handicrafts were on display.
For the second time Rwanda had found its way to the Embassy Festival. On the stage of the Creative Arena, the cultural program included traditional Rwandan dance performances.
Furthermore, the Rwanda Pavilion was centrally located on the International Market where H.E. Mr. Jean Pierre Karabaranga and his team provided a crowd of visitors with up to date information about the various tourism and business & investment opportunities in Rwanda.
Throughout the day Rwandan specialty Rwanda specialty coffee specialist Brewanda served coffee and people enjoyed the Rwandan Coffee Brownies from the Rose & Vanilla Bakery.
For more information about the festival, please visit: www.embassyfestival.com
Photos enclosed. High resolution photos can be downloaded from the Flickr photo album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rwanda-embassy-nl/albums/72157700574667274
The argument about war and justice is still a political and moral issue.
Decisionmakers and victims alike have to examine the moral issues of warfare and at the same time, with the growing awareness of religion, pay attention to the status of religion on the subject of forgiveness in international relations.
The questions that arise are: what is the role of forgiveness and religion in international relations? And, how can we deal with tough issues in international relations through forgiveness?
In today’s world it is more and more clear that war and peace do not present a simple dichotomy.
Countries do not say to each other “I forgive you”. In international politics asking for forgiveness is not something that happens spontaneously, but is a rational decision that comes after a long process and sometimes an emotional motive drives the request for forgiveness as well as political pragmatism. More than anything else, forgiveness is a conscious choice. In politics it is never about forgetting but about remembering in a certain way.
This is also the significance of image. A country that has committed a moral wrong in the past would ask for forgiveness because it wants to show its citizens and the world a different image and therefore will also engage in the ethics of forgiveness. Forgiveness has hardly been a traditional value in world affairs, as there is a kind of resistance in linking politics with forgiveness.
Forgiveness as a political strategy has rarely appeared, until lately, on the diplomatic scene. The concept is foreign to most secular philosophies, not only because forgiveness is mostly consigned to personal matters, but also because of our geopolitical times.
Let’s make it clear, forgiveness cannot be imposed, it is a process as justice plays a large role in the political forgiveness process for there is no real justice without forgiveness. Public confessions of wrongdoing and the request for forgiveness have been rare in modern history. But, at the same time, never before has there been an era of public contrition for mistakes and atrocities of the 20th century.
The Pope has declared that the Holocaust was an “indelible stain” on the 20th century. The fact that his statement was delivered in Israel shows how remorse can be a function of politics. Forgiveness has a marked effect and can open doors to remarkable instances of reconciliation and has the potential of being enormously influential in international relations of the 21st century. In several of the world’s centre-stage conflicts, forgiveness has made an entrance, helping repair broken relationships in fractious societies.
Many conflicts of the past decade are rooted less in the intangible thing of religion, ethnicity and group identity.
Forgiveness has a spiritual component and involves acknowledgment, contrition and forgiveness. It cannot be imposed and depends on our acknowledgment of the power and depth of God’s love. This is the aspect which connects us with a higher mind, our spiritual essence of who we truly are. It requires from politicians inner strength, maturity and the willingness to see a situation from a different angle.
They have to be able to develop empathy for their enemies and not invest themselves in dehumanising their enemies.
Forgiveness has to be possible in politics if there is to be any hope of former enemies being able to co-exist as members of the international community. We learn the need to forgive and be forgiven from our experience of living together with others. In forgiveness we affirm our readiness to act anew and to establish new relationships. When we do achieve the goal of being neighbours to people who were once our enemies, then we will see forgiveness in politics in action.
In order to see things from a different angle we have to accept the belief that there is a spiritual basic goodness in each of us and this gives us the ability to love and recognise our connection with humanity.
This inner spiritual touch is the one that makes it possible for us to view the world we live in in a different way. The spiritual will to forgive frees us to do the emotional work of forgiving for it has to do with uniting people through practical politics. The behind-the scenes efforts of religious organisations are aimed at not just reaching agreement but at healing the wounds that are the root of any conflict.
Forms of informal diplomacy had involved religious or spiritually motivated organisations such as the Quakers in Nigeria, the Mennonites in Central America and Catholics in Zimbabwe. The challenges we face in the 21st century are severe and societies will have to undergo changes if we want to be able to face the challenges that lie ahead of us.
Forgiveness is an important factor if we want to achieve a lasting peace. Otherwise, we will hear only the voices of scepticism. The readiness to forgive will create possibilities for truth-telling and the courage to take political responsibility.
————
About the author: Israel Rafalovich, is a journalist now based in Brussels who has 51 years of experience with international in Tel-Aviv, Brussels, Bonn and Washington, DC. He covers the Europe and the European institutions and writes a weekly column on international Relations.Israel Rafalovich, is currently writing a book on the subject of forgiveness in international relations.
By Jan Dop.
Many enterprises work with on-call employees. It is advantageous for employers because they can adapt their business operations to the developments in the market. But there are also benefits for on-call employees: they are free to work more or fewer hours and it can also be a step towards a permanent contract. What kind of contracts are there for on-call employees? What are the rights of on-call employees and which obligations do employers have to meet?
There are three types of on-call contracts, zero-hours contracts, min.-max. contracts, and pre-agreements. However, since the introduction of the chain rule the latter hardly exist anymore and will not be dealt with in this blog.
Zero-hours contracts
A zero-hours contract is an employment contract and therefore there are obligations for both employers and employees. Employers must, for instance, call upon employees when there is work and workers are in principle required to perform work when called upon. In principle, employers are required to continue to pay salary even if there is no work or if no work can be performed due to other reasons at the risk of the employer. In addition, the following requirements apply:
The obligation to continue to pay wages in the event of sickness is only applicable if the on call employee gets sick during the on-call period. If the on-call worker gets sick outside the on-call period, the obligation does not apply.
After three months of having been called upon regularly, the employee can make a “legal presumption of the scope of work”. This means that a contract of employment exists which is based on the average hours of work performed per month. It is up to the employer to prove the contrary.
Min.-max. contract
In this contract a minimum and maximum number of hours are agreed upon between employer and employee. The minimum hours are also referred to as “guaranteed number of hours”.
With regard to a min.-max. contract the following requirements apply:
On-call employees have to be paid for the guaranteed number of hours, even if the hours were not worked.
If an on-call worker is not able to perform work due to sickness, the obligation to continue to pay wages during sickness is applicable for at least the guaranteed number of hours.
After three months, the employee can make a “legal presumption of the scope of work”. This means that a contract of employment exists based on the average hours of work performed per month. It is up to the employer to prove the contrary.
Minimum on-call period
Regarding all on-call contracts, each time the employees are called upon they are entitled to a salary for at least three hours of work. Even if the employees have worked for a period of less than three hours. This requires however that the employment contract does not contain a clear scope of work, or that the scope of work is less than 15 hours per week. Min.-max. contracts are subject to the condition that the guaranteed number of hours is less than 15 hours per week. This may have been deviated from in a collective agreement.
Obligation to continue to pay wages excluded
In principle, the employer is required to continue to pay wages if the employee is unable to perform work due to reasons at the risk of the employer, such as cancellation of an order, technical problems, or if a company is snowed in. In an on-call contract the obligation to continue to pay wages also applies if the employer can provide work but does not make a call upon the employees.
The employer can exclude this obligation to continue to pay wages in the contract. For zero-hours contracts this means, for instance, that the employer is not required to continue to pay wages if there is no more work, regarding min. max. contracts, this means that the guaranteed number of hours don’t have to be paid, only the hours worked have to be paid. The rule that three hours per call have to be paid will remain in effect.
The obligation to continue to pay wages can be excluded for a maximum period of six months, but in collective agreements may be laid down the possibility of extension. This is only possible if the activities are carried out occasionally and not restricted in scope. For instance, if employees are only called upon in peak periods or to substitute employees that are temporarily absent.
Temporary contracts
On-call contracts, in whatever form, are usually temporary contracts. Since the introduction of the Work and Security Act, stricter rules have been applied regarding the probationary period, notice period, chain rule, and non-solicitation clause.
Future
Despite a tightening of the employers’ obligations in the Work and Security Act, according to the cabinet, on-call employees are still in a precarious position. The Labour Market in Balance Bill therefore contains a number of measures meant to ensure a strengthening of the position of the on-call worker:
Employees must be called upon at least 4 days in advance by the employer and are not required to be constantly available. In collective agreements, the on-call period may be restricted to 1 day.
On-call employees are entitled to wages if the call is cancelled.
After 12 months, on-call employees must be offered a contract for a fixed number of hours.
Jan DopAbout the author:Jan Dop, LL.M. Jan is Head of our Embassy Desk, that serves Embassies, Consulates, diplomats and expats. He has been a lawyer at Russell since 1995, and became a partner in 2011. Jan Dop assists national and international enterprises in all facets of their day-to-day business operations. He specializes in personnel, real estate and issues involving public authorities.@: jan.dop@russell.nlt: +31 20 301 55 55
After a short break, the program continued with a concert brimming over with positive Iraqi vibrations. The trio: Caroline Devile piano and song, Sattar Al-Saadi flute, derback and tambourine and the renowned veteran Iraq Maqam singer Mr. Ali Al -Jadah (78) who stole the show with his voice full of vigour and spirit graced the concert. Interesting to note that from September 6-10, 2018 the First International Maqom Festival has taken place in the city of Shakhrisabz, Uzbekistan.
To the delight of the audience, the trio performed popular folk songs. The audience was elated! Everyone left the concert in high spirit.
