So let me stress that I've been told that we can now turn off the mic because there will now be an automatic picking up our voices in the room. I'm sorry if I haven't picked it up in your presentation but I was wondering about actually the role that maybe inequality, the patterns of growth playing or in your conclusions because if you say that the faster growth brings about faster poverty reduction, would you assume that that is at a given level of inequality and how does this play out? And for Germano, I'm not actually sure how the number of years of education or sickness can be qualified as effort, so I don't know if you can dwell a little bit on that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Murray Labron from the University of Cape Town. So find a quick one for you when you said that the benchmark incomes were not sensitive to the inequality measures. Maybe you can just, I presume the benchmark incomes are sensitive to the inequality measures but the net result at the end, that the measure didn't make such a big difference to the story you were telling, but I'll leave that with you. And then on the first paper, a little bit like Anders' question, I guess the puzzle is that the second half of your paper emphasizes the fact that the initial level of poverty makes a big difference and so that then pushes us but you start with the strong statement that of course poverty reduction requires growth. But obviously in the African performance in the growth elasticity of poverty, if you like, in Africa has been very disappointing relative to the world economy. So I think it's in the intersection of those two things, I'd just like to reflect on that because for me, the big stylized fact when I start thinking about growth and poverty is the fact that the returns to growth have been quite disappointing in the continent without wanting to be a denialist, that's ridiculous. But yeah, thank you. I'm closer than the front. Hi, I'm Rachel Gisselquist. I'm with UNU Wider. And so I have a question for UCN for Finn. So UC picking up on, I think it was one of your last points about this virtuous spiral, right? So I wonder, I'm wondering about how your two policy messages compare. So you've, you talk about the virtuous spiral and that the importance of addressing poverty first and then growth, right? And Finn, you're emphasizing policy trade-offs. So I'm wondering, are you agreeing with each other?  What are the key disagreements? So we try to answer these questions now and then we will continue with another round. Something after, we need to mic up here then. I think I can speak out the room for the next week or so why don't we start with UC? I'm UC. Yeah. All right. So I will try to answer the questions and I also try, before I answer, I will also try to make sure that I got the questions. So the first lady from French development, you know, the question is, so as I understand you are asking about the role of inequality in the dynamic. Is that correct? Yeah. So, and then you asked about, you know, you said you begin with finding that growth has a positive impact on poverty reduction. What is a role of inequality? I'm actually, I'm grateful that you asked the question because indeed, if you go back to the literature, you know, Dollar, Cray, you know, they were talking about how on the one hand, they emphasize the role of growth has been central for poverty reduction and on the other hand, they also hinted, not hinted, they made it clear in their paper that inequality is of little relevance, but in our analysis, actually we do find that the role of inequality has been increasing over time. So if you split the four decades that we studied into sub periods, you do see that the role of inequality has been increasing over time when we are talking about the link from growth to poverty reduction. So it has been having a bigger impact and a growing impact, you know, compared to the effectiveness of growth in reducing poverty. That's the role of inequality. It's becoming more important as to what I under, as to how I understand it. Now the second question or the comment, yeah, I mean, I understand you invite me or you suggest we should consider more about the growth elasticity and how it's being underperforming in sub-Saharan Africa. Did I get it right? Yeah, that surprises me as well, because, you know, and I recently actually looked at the most recent poverty data. And I actually find, you know, that if you split into decades, you see that the elasticity of growth in reducing poverty was at minus three in the 1990s and 2000s. But after 2010 and most recent one decade, growth elasticity has been declining to minus 2.4, which is before, you know, they had that level back in the 1980s. So you see the effectiveness of growth increased in the 1990s and 2000s and declined. That is actually interesting, but I'm still exploring. And also how they vary by developing regions, because what I told is just, you know, about the entire developing world. And also the inequality data that I used is from the World Bank. I haven't explored the wheat data. Maybe we will have some more nuanced stories. And also I looked at the effectiveness of changing inequality in reducing poverty. It's the opposite story. It's not important back in the 1980s, but it's becoming more and more important as we move more into the most recent decades. Yeah, I agree. I think it's fascinating. Yeah, thank you. The third one from Rachel. I will give it to Professor Thorn. It's a hard one. Yes, when I was listening to his research presentation, I also wonder, you know, but I mean, in our case, I just want to make sure, because this is a message that is really close to the heart of Professor Thornbacks. I want to just convey. So he is fed up with how we are placing a central role on growth. So the paper is really to try to find some opposite evidence to highlight, not to say growth is no longer important, but to say that poverty reduction in the first place might have some impact on promoting growth, which would in turn. But I mean, the causal identification is really tough. I wasn't able to do it. I have to confess with my cross-sectional data and the techniques that I currently have. And I really ask people to give me advice in that regard, as for whether I agree and disagree with Professor Tarp. I'll give you the tough question. So, actually, your question was whether years of schooling is also effort. Can you please, I did not get it very well. So the question is years of schooling in relation to their effect on income or inequality. Are you asking whether they belong in effort or yes, actually, they do. Although in our paper, actually, I mean, this is an individual's level of... I now can see your point. OK. So years of schooling obtained long time ago, that is like circumstance, because there's nothing we can do about those years now. Years of schooling achieved long time ago. So those are like circumstances. Years of schooling now, those are like effort. And actually, there's something we can do. A person can change their level of schooling now. I'm going to school now and working. OK, so I can actually change my years of schooling. So that is effort. But my years of schooling undertaken say 20 years ago, like over a chairman, that one, there's nothing we can do about it. So I think it depends on how it's defined. It depends on how it's defined. OK, for sickness. OK. Sickness, sickness is actually a pure effort. OK. I'm also thinking as I answer this question. So if this is sickness from COVID, that is circumstance. But if that is sickness from COVID, because I've not worn a mask, that is effort. OK. So actually, we haven't really separated those. We haven't thought very carefully on how to think of effort, sorry, of sickness as an exogenous variable, a circumstance over which an individual has no control. And also, a variable that an individual has control over. OK, so I've also understood that. Yes, I think that's how I answer it more or less the same way. And also to elaborate that, you see sickness as a negative effect on the income. But then there are things related to sickness that also, instead of reducing income, they actually increase income. OK, when you are sick, your income actually increases. How is that? OK, it has to do with the cultural norms in villages that we don't measure or see. Like when people get sick, they actually get transferred from other households. That is how that is possible. OK, thank you very much. I mean, thanks very much. I mean, I apologize if I were too rushed in terms of explaining. I mean, once you have chosen your inequality measure, be that a genie, an absolute genie, whatever, I mean, among the sort of battery we have, then they do, of course, identify different benchmarks. However, when you have the measure, then you have one unique benchmark. And that's the beauty of it, because then you can't go back and forth and then discuss. I mean, that's where the domestic benchmark lies. And it's in that sense, it's to be interpreted. If you take a look at the slides, it will have been specified correctly. If I was too rushed, I apologize. When it comes to the virtual spiral, the question from Rachel, I mean, I want to make very clear that we have not in this paper, we have not considered, so what are the implications then from, for example, inequality back on growth, from growth in different parts of the distribution? We have not considered what are the impacts of poverty remaining unchanged on growth, et cetera, et cetera. We've tried to identify a number of trade-offs which we think should be discussed in a transparent way and then linked to the other literatures that might exist. And that's why, actually, I try to provoke and jump into a little bit into political economy or even politics by talking about this potential trade-off. If you focus on those who are between, for example, the 50s and the 75th, that if you don't focus on those, you might have other consequences. So we have in many ways, we have not looked at the consequences. I have a great sympathy for us addressing or thinking a lot about the sort of strong focus on growth and growth only because I don't think that growth only is the response that we should come with in development economics. We do need to, at the same time, certainly when you're looking at the poor readings of the world, you are not going to have development without growth. So it's in that context that we are thinking about these and making these trade-offs correct. So in that sense, I mean, I guess that you can sort of say what we are trying to focus on is growth and support for whom, and that in many ways kind of corresponds with what Eric and UCR are sort of talking about. I'm refraining a little bit from trying to suggest any causal relationships because unfortunately our literature, for example, on inequality impact on growth. I mean, you can get practically any result you want if you look to the literature and there is actually a survey paper. We've done under this project with Enes and you, Rachel, which kind of brings out that the literature is not very clear on that point. But I do believe that there are some clear messages. But I personally hesitate to sort of be very strong on the causality side because it could be very country-specific and then it's very tricky to bring that out in cross sections. Okay, there were other questions. I at least saw one other hand. So now we will turn it back to you. But you really have to be quite concise if you want to have a reply. And then the organizers has requested that before you all run away, we should convene up here and get a so-called group photo. So if you don't mind instead of running away, come up here and gather at the end of it when I have said this was it. So there was a question up here, I believe. Yeah, up here. Just follow up question. Yeah. You can choose not to answer this. It was just a clarification I needed in response to her question on sickness being a circumstance. The example that you gave that if someone gets COVID if you're not wearing a mask, that's your effort. And if you get COVID without, even though you were wearing a mask, that's a circumstance if you fall sick with COVID. So my understanding, we can talk about this later if not now, my understanding of circumstances are that it's defined on the basis of what you're born into, right? So your family background, your identity, your caste background and so forth. So I'm not sure why sickness, it could be that you're born into a poorer socioeconomic, a family with poorer socioeconomic background, which is why you are more prone to fall sick and I can draw some far-fetched link there. But otherwise, I'm not sure how to think about it. Thank you. Other questions of the people who want to engage? So we have one here in the front. Any one that's close to where the mic is? I'm just saying that before the mic comes on, stop. Yeah, exactly. So we take you and then I'm in the front here and then that would be it. Thank you. I kind of missed the last part of the policy messages. So I'm just a little bit of clarification actually for the lady who presented on growth and inequality. Is there any sort of decomposition of this growth process because growth is such a broad term? Is it labor-led growth? Is it capital-intensive growth? Is it growth that generates employment? Because all of that would have a very definite impact on poverty reduction, right? So how can one break down growth so that we know what it means? Because just GDP growing, how does that translate into? So it's more of a comment for UC. So you were talking about these two pathways, right? So you can either reduce, you know, you can go for growth and that will reduce poverty and inequality. Or you focus on poverty reduction, inequality reduction, and that can also lead to, you know, growth. So has there been any, you know, I was just thinking in terms of what can we do and how can we argue of one channel versus the other? So one possible thing is to see how many years, right?  And then do the same analysis for if I had to reduce poverty by this X percent, how many years will it take to come to that level of growth that I started with, right? So I was just thinking that this could actually be a good comparison and the right metric to compare, you know, which method is better? And another one is for German, right? You were showing some results about equalizing, right? And of course, equalizing assets reduces inequality, right? But the question is, you equalize it at one point, it reduces inequality. But what happens in the subsequent years, right? Is it sustained? Will it, you know, dissipate? Those are very important questions from a policy perspective, right? So maybe, you know, just bringing that to the forum. Thank you. Okay, so you see first in German and I have a couple of recruiting remarks. Okay, to your question, yeah, it's a great one. I mean, I want to clarify. So in this research, what we mean by growth is really just a growth in main income. It's in no way we have data. I mean, not in no way. There are data, but we haven't explored in this paper. You know, what kind of growth? You are exactly right. Growth in what? Growth of what kind? How do you decompose so that you can more, you know, in a more nuanced manner to identify the impact? I really do not know, but I think it's a wonderful insight that I have not thought about before. Yeah, thank you. And thank you so much for the comments. Indeed, you know, growth for how long, poverty reduction by how much, you know, if we can further explore and fine tune the research. Yeah, but I mean, yeah. All the time my concern is really the causality link. You know, the claim is really just too bold. So if anyone has econometric techniques and insights to teach me, please. And that's all I have to say. A little bit on the Rachel, I want to, you know, just because I suddenly gave it a quick thought. I understand Professor Tarp is talking about how sometimes reducing inequality might mean that you have to sort of ignore the very poorest at the bottom. And then so that's your question. Do you guys agree? So I think, you know, because I do find changing inequality if we improve and reduce inequality, ultimately it would have a positive impact on reducing poverty. So we might still end of the day, agree with each other, I think, yeah. Thank you very much. How do we define circumstances or circumstance? So one definition is what we inherit, which you cannot change. And so the issue there is something that an individual cannot change. Now, sickness, due to a random strike, striking by, say, a virus, something that happened to us randomly. One person is struck by lightning, the other one is saved, for example. We cannot change that. That also actually falls under definition of circumstance. Something that an individual has very little control over. So that is, I was thinking something along those lines. Although in the literature, which actually have not much touch, still working on it, falls under definition of inheritance. Also in the plenary, okay, that is how the circumstance was defined. Now, maybe I can ask this issue about what were we equalizing. So we equalize probability of sickness. So everyone has the same probability of sickness. And then we look to see what that does to incomes. And then to inequality, okay. Now, the one thing, okay. Whether that is sustainable, that equalization is sustainable in the future, that's actually an important issue that we don't consider. But the other issue, which we also don't consider, is the mechanisms through which this equalization works. And actually that is why even with equalization, you might find that incomes might increase or fall. And inequalities also may move in any direction. Because the mechanisms are not clear. At least in the models that we used. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. My final comment will be that it's very clear that it's incredibly important to keep in mind that the growth poverty elasticity in the Sub-Saharan African context has been disappointingly low. This was very much the driving element behind both the book that I referred to on growth and poverty in Africa together, edited together with Channing-Aunt and Andy McKay where there are contributors here. What we tried in that volume, which by the way is freely downloadable, we actually try to categorize countries where we try to say in a broad sort of way, we try to categorize countries into these different areas where we could see where is it that the growth poverty elasticity has been particularly low? Where is it that it has just sort of been not particularly good? Where is it that it has been quite good? And where is it that we just have a very hard time to say what has happened? So if you wish to have at least one way of thinking about 16-country case studies, then I do suggest that at least you take a look at that volume and sort of a one-liner thing. Cases where agriculture has been ignored or at least not gotten the attention that all insights from development economics would suggest it should have, they will perform poorly in terms of the growth poverty elasticity. That stands out as one kind of quite clear insight and that to some extent does relate back to the concerns about the GPIR ARC program and in that sense you can say that there are links between the different elements that we have been discussing today. Thank you very much to all for participating. Thank you for great presentations and thank you very much for great questions. And may I ask you to join up for the group photo? Remember tall people in the back, not so tall in the front and nobody on the table, please, if you stand up there, it will fall apart. I can see that from empirical observation. Thank you and enjoy your lunch.


The thing that I'm most impressed by is since LeBron James has been out, Anthony Davis, 35 points a game, 11 rebounds a night and three blocks per game. That's the Anthony Davis we saw early in the year who was dominant and who was doing it on both ends of the floor.  They need him to play at that elite level every single night. Otherwise, they have no chance. The fact that this team is still floating, I think they can present any of those teams a real challenge. Yes, they need LeBron James back line. If we don't know when that'll be. Three week reevaluation for him. And even after that, I don't know if the Lakers think he's going to be back in three weeks. I don't think it'll be just the three weeks likely beyond that. And so you put yourself in a position where you hope that he's back right before the playoffs or gets back for the playing.


Come in and tight man. You know why? Hey, see we ain't tight man. This group right here man. We all we got, and we all we need. We don't know who not here, all we care about who here. Hey, you know God's got an opportunity man. Take advantage of this. Hey, it's time to lock some gates. They don't leave ID with a W. It's time for us to turn this around. It's time to turn this around. Embrace the juice man. Play for each other. Play for your brother man. Have his back. And if he hits you, somebody hits your brother. Black Jersey? I win man. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win. I win man. Win on three, one, two, three. Win.


Good evening one and all and it's always a pleasure connecting with Lex Legal, Lex Study Circle and today we have Suresh from the Lex Study Circle and we have been trying with Justice P. N. Prakash to share his knowledge because we had been keeping on receiving request to the effect that if one can make understand the criminal jurisprudence. They couldn't be a better person than Justice P. N. Prakash, a former judge from Madras Cycle. Since they say since Naam Hikap here, I will not introduce much, I will just ask Mr. Suresh to give a brief introduction and then we will ask Justice Prakash to share his insights on proof and presumptions under law. Good evening one and all, thank you for calling me to say a few words about Mr. Prakash. Good evening sir. I have been with him during his two or three days and can at least be seeing him as a judge also and now he is retired and as a Study Circle we have been doing this video conference sessions many during this COVID period and nice that beyond law because he is continuing that. Thank you once again for joining us also in the meeting. Over to you sir. Good evening Vikas and all this with their hope to this session. I went on a sabbatical and I decided not to return to law but you see Vikas was so persistent he has been behind me at least for the last three months very consistently he would call me every week and say sir we need you to come and give a thing. I told Vikas I have left law, I left it on 11 January 2023 and thereafter I said goodbye to law and I have no more nothing to do with what I said but you know it doesn't happen like that. I was forced to come back to teaching because there was a demand from the lawyers here for cracking the civil justice examination which is down the corner here. So once I accepted to teach them I couldn't refuse to be cast. So that's why I'm here. So good evening. It's a very nice gathering I suppose. We'll get let's get to business. I hope you all are having the Indian evidence that barrack with you because this is what I told Vikas to inform the participants that they should have a barrack. Hello. Vikas you can unmute yourself. Yeah, I thought my team was having the control. Yes sir everybody will be having the barrack and the people who are on the YouTube live and Instagram they should also have the barrack with them. The whole of their capacity rest will come on the YouTube only now. I know suddenly what happened was there it hanged. So I thought that there was some technical issue. But I was visible and audible during the call. No problem. Now my dear friends, see I'm not going to bore you with the ad director etc. But I just wanted you to have it as a mere referral point. Today the topic is proof and presumptions in law. See, before going into the subject, it's necessary for me to tell a small historical aspect with all this. See proof of a fact and presumptions in law is through the Indian evidence act. So you need to know a little history of the law of evidence in India. For that I would like to take you back to 1773 when the Regulating Act came and it was Warren Hastings idea to establish company quotes. You were aware that the British, the sovereign institute constituted a Supreme Court in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in the towns of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. But in the official area where the company was administering, you may be aware that after the Battle of Blasey, the Divani was transferred to the East India Company and they started administering the various places in the North India. So there was so much of chaos that Warren Hastings thought that some courts should have to be established to deal with the day to day problems of the people. That is how company courts were established in all these places outside of the town of Calcutta. Inside the town of Calcutta, you had the Supreme Court of Calcutta which was functioning. The company courts were being manned by ordinary civil servants of the company. The irony is in this country, in all other countries, first law will come and courts will come. In our country, first courts came and then only law came. So as the courts started administering justice, they did not know which law to administer. They were asking for the Hindus, they were asking the Pandits and they were administering whatever the Pandits suggested as the Hindu law. For the Muslims, they were asking the Moulvis and the Ghazis and whatever they suggested, these fellows were administering that. So in the confusion of about maybe say about 100 years, what they found was, they found a peculiar thing. Our people would use the company courts and get into the witness box and speak everything and everything in the courts because our Ghazis are really very imaginative people, very, very imaginative. So their belief systems would border on or would think on mysticism, magic, for example, supposing if there is a partition dispute or something, they would get into the witness box and say, my grandfather came in my dream and he told me son, this entire share is worse to the exclusions of your brother. You only should take the share and that is why you see, when my grandfather told me in my dream and for that he would bring some 10 witnesses who would also say that in their dreams also his grandfather came and told that this property should be given. This is the sort of thing which our fellow and if there is a crime is to be detected, our people would use some of the magic things, something on a beetle leaf, they will put on black thing, try to find out who the person who had tipped the property. All sorts of things our people used to get into the witness box and speak, irrelevantly. In every case you will find 50 witnesses on this side and 50 witnesses on that side. This is because everybody will get witnesses to support their stand and witnesses will get into the witness box and speak anything and everything. It was a very chaotic situation it was. So the necessity to have a codified law of evidence was felt by the commissioners 1853. If you remember Macaulay comes here and then 1855 that time they say that yes, there should have to be a law to codified law for India. Otherwise it would be very difficult to administer justice in India because capricious thing it would be so very arbitrary. So the codified laws started coming with Macaulay framing the Indian Penal Code and you will find in the Indian Penal Code also. There are certain sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and all where law of evidence should be discussed there. Evidentiary aspects should be there because there was no substantive law of evidence then. So evidentiary values 34 common intention, cooperation all these are evidence rules of evidence. They are not punishing sections though you will find them in the Indian Penal Code. The Indian Penal Code is not punishing sections they have rules of evidence it is there. Then of course Macaulay's code gets posted to the back burner for quite some time because there are a lot of opposition from the Englishmen themselves. They didn't want the code. Sir the first chief justice of the last chief justice of Supreme Court of Calcutta, Barnes Peacock and the first chief justice of the High Court of Mineta. You may be aware that the Supreme Court of Calcutta becomes High Court of Calcutta. The Supreme Court of Madras becomes the High Court of Madras. The Supreme Court of Bombay becomes High Court of Bombay. So all those judges become the High Court. So Sir Barnes Peacock will revive the Indian Penal Code that was drafted by Macaulay and Kip and that is how 1861 this code comes. So 1861 also we did not have an evidence law but you would find the principles are written at the 1861 code of criminal procedure. See whenever there is a substantive law which defines the rights and liabilities. For example Indian Penal Codes says this is the offence, this is the punishment and how do you implement that substantive provision? You need a procedural code and the procedural code is 1861 code of criminal procedure under which the criminal codes were established and the criminal codes were asked to administer justice in accordance with the code of criminal procedure implementing the substantive law. The substantive law being Indian Penal Code. So the code started implementing 1861 but if you see the 1861 code you will find the confession to police officer which is the present 25, 26, 27 all that will be there in the 1861 code of criminal procedure. Because it contained both procedural aspects as well as evidential aspects.  So 1861 what happened was the code of criminal procedure also had evidential aspects as well it had the procedure for trial, procedure for investigation, etc. Then comes Sir James Stevens, he comes as a law member and then that man's genius is the Indian Penal Indian Evidence Secretary in 1972 is that these people are all, please understand they are all bentomites. You know a bentomite is a person who believes that everything must be purified and they must not allow arbitrariness in judicial proceedings. Whereas in England it is, nothing is purified, everything is judge made law, the law of evidence in England is a judge made law. You have a law of evidence only recently, if my memory serves me right, the PAS, P-A-C Act came only 1985, 1985 by the way. So 1872 they didn't have any evidence of the rules of evidence, the judges applied the rules of evidence which are fairness, equity and another thing is culturally English people speak very less. English people speak so very less that you know it's very difficult to, you go to England and you will find people just silently going in an electric train or in a, I think they wouldn't find them very boisterous like Americans or Indians. So they speak very less and to the point they will speak, they get to the witness box, they will speak up to the point and that's it. On the contrary I told you our people are very boisterous, very gregarious people, they are all their imagination, they are lit goose in the witness box, they will see all sorts of things and this has to be, this had to be regulated by law. Therefore the Indian evidence that is brought in and the fundamental basic of the Indian evidence that is relevancy and admissibility. So keep this in mind, this you must have been taught in the law college itself, relevancy and admissibility. So relevancy sections, this part one sections in the Indian evidence that is relevancy section, what is relevant etc. The admissibility sections starts with the part two and all, presumptions also come at the part two. So this is broadly the framework of the Indian evidence that which is be applied in the court of law. Please understand, don't get confused with its application outside the court of law, outside the court of law for the purpose of investigation etc. The court of criminal procedure that I think and 1861 criminal procedure is repeated and 1898 criminal procedure comes because I told you 1872 this act comes and this act takes away quite a lot of provision from the 1861 court regarding inner disability of conflict etc. in Portugal 1872 court, then 1898 court is revised and 1861 court is given, there is one more court comes in the interim, let's not get worried about that. Then 1898 court comes, 1898 court comes to stake in our country till 1973. In 1973 you are aware that the present court of criminal procedure in 1970 came to be repealing the 1898 court. This is broadly the court of criminal procedure and evidence that is 1872 we are managing with it. Of course there is two amendments here and there which we have made about which I will just make a pass. Now proof and presumptions, so the concept of proof, what is the proof? Simple, see court is a system which deals with the past tense action, is it not? For a debt, for a promissory note given last year, if there is going to be demand, the court will decide whether the demand is correct or not etc. For a murder that is committed earlier, the judge decide whether this is below the murder, for a cheating that is committed earlier, the judge decide whether the cheating was done by him. So the past tense action is what the judicial system decides. Unlike the executor who decide on today, today what has to be done? What action has to be taken? If there is going to be a mob thing, should there be a firing? Should there be 144 clamp? Should there be preventive arrest? They take action in presently to do this and legislature always thinks in future how India should be next 10 years, what should be the laws of India. So basically past tense is judiciary, present tense is executable, future tense is the legislature. So we are dealing with the past tense action. So somebody has to come and tell before a judge, sir this is exactly what happened. And therefore I have a right. I am asserting my right. He is liable to pay me this. So you decide about this. That is why a person comes to the court. For that you must read the small definition of fact and issue. I will not trouble you. Fact and issue, the expression fact and issue means and includes any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts. The existence comma, non-existence comma, nature or extent of any right comma, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows. So you must provide the section so beautifully that is any suit either you are right, liability or disability. These things is what a person comes to the court to be determined as a fact and issue. It's very simple, my dear. In several cases you frame the issues, is it not? In several cases, the plaintiff's file, the retention from this file, the judge reads it and waves the issues. That is issues. That's exactly issues. In criminal cases, the charges. What is the charge against you, sir? On this date, this date 30th of January, so on and so on. So you, with the previous motive, so on and so on. So took a knife and stabbed, so on and so on and so on. So costing is instantaneous. Whatever it is. So the charge is asserting a liability on you. It asserts a liability that you are liable for having ordered this file liability. So you come to the court with this to determine the fact and issue. And evidence is an instrument. It is a material through which you established these facts before a court, before a judge who was not present when the murder took place.  The judge was not present. You're trying to reconstruct the past transaction to a judicial officer in the court of law and saying that, asserting a liability of the accused, that the accused sitting standing there is liable for having raped this woman or cheating this thing or murdering this person or whatever it is. So this is where the court mechanism comes. So the court mechanism is required to determine this right or liability. For that determination, evidence is there. Evidence. So now, what is proof? To understand the concept of proof, you must sink into your system, the definition of the word proof. I always felt that, you know, if once we teach our law college students, the fundamentals of the word prove. And if it gets into their system, whether it is the proved, disproved and not proved, then 50% of the problems will be solved. Today, there is so much of confusion in the minds of lawyers and judges because of the fact that they have not really understood what they are required to prove in the court of law. That is the problem. So I will just take a little time. If anybody has evidence that you may take it and read and slowly along with me, take time to read the definition of the word prove. Prove. A fact is said to be proved when here you must be, what is required to be proved is fact. You are required to prove a fact. You are not required to prove the truth. Please understand, we are all getting confused about proof of truth. Indian evidence said the courts are not required but truth is very, very different. An Indian idea of truth is absolute truth and relative truth. You will see absolute truth is Brahman. Relative truth is what Maya, all these sort of philosophies Indians will tell. So you will get confused if you go to the concept of truth. What you are required to prove is fact. What is a fact? Fact is nothing but what the five senses perceive.  These are things fact. Truth and fact are two different facets. I will demonstrate it in no time for you. It is a fact that sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Simple. But it is not the truth. Where does the sun rise in the east and rise in the west? Sun remains there itself. The earth rotates and therefore morning sunrise happens, night sunset happens. But factually your eyes perceive the sun rising from the horizon, going up at 12 o'clock in the afternoon and then coming down at 5 o'clock in the evening on the western side. Is it not?  It just goes up and goes back. So factually what you will say, sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But truthfully what you will say, the earth does not rise. It remains there. So you don't get confused about truth and not. Don't waste your time trying to find truth and not. You will never ever be able to find the truth in the digital system, especially with human affairs. It will not be an easy task to find truth. So the problem with our people is we try to, we want to know the truth and who wants to. You can't know the truth at all. You are not God. Your senses are only so limited that you can't even perceive anything beyond 100 meters. So where is you to perceive? You are not even able to perceive the fact that the world is rotating. You are able to perceive the thing that only sun is rising and visiting. So don't waste your time trying to find truth and not. Stick to fact. Your fact is said to be proved when considering the matter is very important. Stephens has used the expression matters before it and not the evidence before it. The expression matters in English dictionary is something larger than the expression evidence because evidence is defined under the Indian Evidence Act. Matters is left to the dictionary meaning. It is left to the judge to look at the case from all standpoint, from circumstantial standpoint. Circumstances will speak. They are all matters to be decided. So from the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man, here the expression uses a prudent man, not an intelligent man, not Albert Einstein or Swami Vivekananda, not a down quick sort either. So you and I are ordinary people, the man in the market place, ordinary market place, a common Indian with a common sense, he is a prudent man. Prudent man under the circumstances of the particular case, under the circumstances of the particular case, that is why I always used to say that in criminal law, law of precedence has no relevance at all because just because in that case, the Supreme Court disbelieved with the testimony of the police officer with regard to the recovery of the knife, that cannot be cited as the preceded in this case for the recovery of a knife in another case. On that facts of that particular case, the Supreme Court would have held that we are not believing the recovery and would have acquitted that case. So law of precedence has no real value in criminal jurisprudence because under the circumstances of the particular case, that's what this is different intelligence to act upon the supposition that it exists. So you act upon the supposition that in the facts in particular of the particular case, the fact is said to be proved from the matters before the court a prudent man. The whole problem is the prudent man test is not there with us at all. We are so confused in our mind that we either think that we are King Vikramaditya or we are nothing. You are nothing. You are not a Vikramaditya either. You are nothing.  Apply your common sense. Don't keep your common sense in cold storage. That is the biggest problem. When you look at a certain thing with very less common sense, you tend to get confused about the whole thing. So this word proved is proof of a fact. So of a fact. The proof of about 10 facts will lead to an inference that a particular person is guilty of the offense or not guilty of the offense. Simple. Proof of 10 facts or 10 facts or 20 facts or 15 facts. So what you are required to look into is proof of facts, whether a fact has been proved, b fact has been proved, c fact has been proved. For example, after the murder. See, eyewitness is there. Eyewitness seeing is a thing. But the fact that eyewitness saw the murder by itself could not mean that it is a murder. It would be something different. It could be culpable. We say not amounting to murder. Earlier that fellow would have had some good reasons to take the knife and attack her. So proof of fact is that the fact has to be perceived by the licenses and the fact has to be shown to the court. And from the matters before the court, the prudent man appraises the fact and says, yes, this fact has been proved. The recovery has been proved. The fact that there was blood stain in their thing and the plus sign and then the cloth was sent to the forensic science laboratory and it comes with a positive A positive that has been proved. So then the post-automation shows that so many injuries are in the body. The fact that he was attacked and the death was on account of his attack is proved. Then whether was this the attacker ultimately committed that could be correct from the other evidence. You could either hold to that. This man, for example, you say that the evidence that the murder has taken place in the courtroom where only the husband and wife are there. Why is lying there?  But if not for that fellow who else would have murdered, unless that person shows that yes, I was not murdered or the burden of proof shifts there. So there comes the burden of proof and other aspects. So essentially what I am trying to drive home is try to understand the expression proved and disproved and not proved. Because that will be for you to understand that only then you will be able to appreciate presumptions. Presumptions, which I am going to come a little later, you will be able to appreciate presumptions only if you are able to understand what proof is. So relevancy and admissibility, I told you that this entire evidence set is based on relevancy and admissibility. And whatever is relevant is not admissible and whatever admissible is not relevant. I think this is a fundamental thing which I hope the audience will be aware of, maybe to help some of them. I would say that, see for example, a communication to the advocate, a communication by one spouse to another spouse would be relevant out of the relevant permissions for a fine. Now, I told you my dear friends that the system of our people getting into the witness box and speaking all sorts of things, how it is getting controlled, I will tell you. The control switches in section 5 of the witness act, the control switch in section 5. Section 5 says the evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding. See here suit is a civil one, proceeding or criminal will come. Earlier also when I told you fact in issue, the criminal proceeding is criminal will come within the ambit of the proceeding. Given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are here and after declared to be irrelevant. So, of such other facts as are here and after declared to be irrelevant. In chapter 2, I am going to, since Stephen says I am going to tell what are all the relevant facts. Fact in issue is supposing a person is going to say that I saw the murder, it was done. He speaks directly to the murder. On the contrary, if a person is going to get a witness box and say that I analyzed the garments of the disease and the garments of the accused and found the blood stain of the disease on this thing. So, he is a relevant fact. The relevancy of facts will come from this section 55 down 5 from 5 section 5 down onwards from 6 onwards 11 to start. The catch word is my dear friends and of such other facts as are here and after declared relevant and of no others. See the end of no others is the catch expression. Boss, you get into the witness box and you don't talk nonsense in the witness box.  We don't want your priest, your magician to say that yes, I saw in the magical screen this fellow had taken the money and on all the nonsense and all. You are not going to listen to it unless they fit into any of these provisions from 6 onwards. So, this is the catch word and no others and of no others. That is why you see Indian judges after the evidence act discussed speak relevantly. Don't speak whatever your imagination. There is no scope for your imagination. So, speak relevant facts. So, now I told you whatever is relevant, it doesn't mean that it's admissible. See for example, the communication to a lawyer that comes in communicates. It is relevant, absolutely relevant. It could be relevant as not a section 6 or the other side. It could get relevant from 8 or 11 side. So many sections on that you should get relevant, become relevant and true. But it is inadmissible in the fourth paragraph. Privileged communication. It is admissible, need not be relevant. Simple. You put the witness to the witness box and cross examine the witness. You ask irrelevant questions. That says, why are you putting irrelevant questions? You say, no, I am testing the veracity of this witness. I want to test whether this witness is a speech speaking witness or a life speaking witness. In order to test its veracity, I am forced to put this relevant questions. So, though the answers given by the witness may not fall within the relevancy from section 6 down on words. It is admissible in evidence because testing the veracity. So, in several situations, admissibility and relevancy get interchanged. For example, confession to police officer is irrelevant. It has made relevant and inadmissible. Simple and straight. There cannot be the confession to police officer. Section 25 makes it totally irrelevant. It is not relevant and it is not admissible. So, relevancy and admissibility are used very frequently and you would have to understand that. So, here in section 6, the first part deals with relevancy and the second part it deals with proof, admissibility. All right. Now, I am not going to go into the other because with the topic before me, it is not about relevancy or fact. This I am touching because to make you understand the concept of proof. Now, proof, how do you prove it? Evidence access, proof is, by oral evidence, are we talking about evidence? Simple. Oral evidences, a person who had seen something, heard something, who smelled something, or the five senses, whatever he had perceived to his five senses could get into the witness box and say, yes, I was in my flat.   I heard the voice, I heard the voice from a neighbor's flat. Then I just opened the door. I saw her husband running and going. That's all. So, what he heard is, he heard at 2 o'clock, the noise of his neighbor's lady. They all the fight between them. They were fighting. There was vessels being thrown here and there. Then I just came out to see what happened. So, this fellow running and going. That's all. So, he tells the court what he heard. He tells the court what he saw. He's a blind person. He's going to tell the court what he heard. Simple as that. I heard this. I felt this. I just shook hands with them. When I shook hands with them, I knew it was not Prakash. It was an imposter who was introducing. I held the Prakash sands earlier and I could feel Prakash sands. It was not Prakash. So, his feeling that he had held Prakash sands earlier and had understood that grip. Subsequently, the imposter said, yes, I am Prakash. He said, no, this is not Prakash. It is his feeling about which he can come to the court. In a given case. These are illustrations. Don't get the thing illustrated. I tried to draw on the point of illustrations. So, illustratively, a blind person could come and give evidence of what this sense of touch, his sense of hearing, his sense of smelling. I smelled LPG gas coming from out of the flat. Blind man. Yes. And that's it.  So, it gives an impression that yes, there is a man who smelled LPG. By then the police could come and think that LPG could get dissolved in the air and you may not have that smell. Till the court cases happen.  But the fact that this blind neighbor smelled LPG is an relevant fact. It's an relevant fact. So, all relevant facts put together and prove from the standpoint of the word proof. You test the facts and come to an intelligent inference about the liability that is asserted in a given case. All right. So, then documentary evidence. So, documentary evidence is the knife, the material objects are also brought into the fold of documentary evidence. Document. It is a document that is exhibited in court. This is what the witness identifies. Yes. This is the knife which I think. So, on witnesses, on proof of witnesses, on proof of witnesses, the standard case is Badiwe Luthevatsky's. Always bear in mind Badiwe Luthevatsky's, Vivian Bose's standard thing. There, Vivian Bose will say there are three class of witnesses, wholly reliable, partly reliable, partly non-reliable, wholly unreliable. So, the first category of a witness, he could be accepted, a wholly reliable witness, could be accepted without anything corroboration, without anything further. You accept the testimony as proof of that fact. As a proof, he doesn't require any corroboration. Partly reliable, partly unreliable is a class of witness who requires corroboration. Accomplice. Accomplice is partly reliable, partly non-reliable. So, you look out for a corroboration, totally unreliable. False speaking witness, no corroboration. His testimony has to be rejected totally. So, classes of witnesses are broadly three, one, two, and three, and to appreciate their evidence, you have certain principles. What is the principle? The principle is, falses and omnibus will not apply to India. I've given this falsely, it's already there in YouTube, in a big lecture which I've given on falses. But for the purpose of this proof, I would say that in Indian context, a witness, the court can, in England, if a witness is found to speak light on a particular fact. If he were to speak about five facts and if he's found to have spoken light with the court on one fact, he will be disbelieved with respect to other facts also because they will, they would not want a liar. They would not want to rely upon liars. If we apply the yardstick to India, you no case will get sustained because our people's imagination is so much that many at times they will speak something believing it to be true, firmly true, firmly true. So, you can't blame them. Their presence of perception would make them believe a certain thing to be true. So, falses and you know, falses and omnibus cannot be applied. You remove that and assess the witness in the intrinsic world. If you believe in two facts, fine. No problem. If there's some corroboration for those two facts, you hold that those two facts are being proved. You don't believe the same witness respect of three other facts. No problem. Don't believe him. The two facts that you believe in to that extent is his testimony is worthy of acceptance. Such a person does not obtain in other things. Take into the cultural aspect. This is what we are consistently we don't apply this thing. Then what's the quality of proof? Quality of proof is the irony today in our system is we have imported the proof beyond reasonable doubt quality into our system. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. How did it come? It came into our system from Woolmington 1935 House of Lords page All England reported. 1935 All England reports page one. Woolmington's case. That is where the query that the web of the criminal jurors put in there that you will find this quoted in all the most of Supreme Court has been saying the web of the justice goes from there that the innocent should not be convicted and there should be golden rule of evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. This concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not find a place anywhere in the audience. The quality of proof is as defined in the word proved. So the quality of proof is what the development was from the matters before it or the supposition that a prudent man believes it to exist. That's all. Where is beyond doubt all these are all common law principles where there is no evidence act in England in 1935. So the court evolved this the House of Lords evolved this principle in but again the Privy Council in 1973 Jay Sena. Jay Sena's case came from Ceylon. Ceylon also has the same Indian evidence act. Ceylon's evidence act is in Perry, so there's a Privy Council said in the House of Lords business we will go with the statute law where the proof beyond reasonable doubt is not there. But then what had happened was India and our Supreme Court considered both Jay Sena and Wilmington and stated that in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt in civil cases pre-ponderance of probability. These are all judgment laws how did it come? It all judgment laws. Evidence act is common to both civil and criminal if a civil case is there the fact has to be proved only in accordance with the word proved in the evidence act. Criminal case the fact has to be proved only same in the word there is no scope for preponderance of probability and proof beyond reasonable doubt. These are all judge made court made laws and for that I can just refer you to this 2004 Supreme Court you take Venkatachala Gounder case go into net and Venkatachala Gounder case 2004 Supreme Court. The Supreme Court have discussed about this thing. Then of course P.M. Krishnalal Krishnalal's case only we will discuss Jay Sena and Wilmington and say that no no no even though Jay Sena has stated like that this principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt has come into our system it should not go out of our system so proof beyond reasonable doubt is come to stay in the system so it becomes a chancellor's jurisdiction. What is proof beyond reasonable doubt for one jet need not be proof beyond reasonable doubt for another jet so that's a different issue totally so this essential aspect of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases proof preponderance of probability in civil cases now presumptions in this presumption you know what presumptions come presumption it comes to the part 2 see present proof I told you proof is earlier through the medium of oral and documentary to establish the proof presumptions are 3 categories may presume shall presume conclusive proof very very simple may presume, shall presume and conclusive proof for broadly I will tell you conclusive proof is something which is concluded one one two of the evidence act would say that the birth of a child within DOS and so it's conclusive proof you cannot accuse evidence and bastardize the child one one two of the evidence act but this doesn't what a conclusive legitimacy of a child is one one two but what has happened this Supreme Court has watered down one one two the DNA case that when the DNA when the Stephens had written this DNA was not there so DNA comes and says okay we can find the paternity with 100% accuracy so when DNA scientific evidence is there to still say that no no no we cannot question the paternity with suspending evidence it may not be correct it may not be just so Supreme Court has watered down this 112 may presume and shall presume very interesting you will find that shall presume if you take the evidence act I will tell you shall presume you will find from 89 from 79 to 130 89 and 130 B 79 to 18 and 130 shall presume shall presume means simple it's a direction of law it's a legal presumption it's a direction of law says you have to presume and such a presumption can be disproved so now you take definition of the word shall presume whenever it is directed by this act whenever that is act then the court shall presume a fact it shall regard that fact as proved unless and until it is disproved so earlier I reviewed the word definition of the word proved disproved is also very imperimaterious thing the proof how a fact is disproved so shall presumption are presumptions dictates of mandate in Torrem this is Katie Thomas it is a proof on the dictates of law losses yes you shall presume the court has no other option it has to presume then if the presumption is against x person means that the x person should have to disprove the presumption alright so the person in whose favor the presumption act need not prove this fact this fact need not be because the law directs of in every other case 130 be this women dying within presumption as the dowry death you will find when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a man and it is shown that soon before a death such women had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death so what will the prosecution require to prove the prosecution will be required to prove that a women was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry okay in connection with any demand for dowry and if she dies whether it is suicide or a thing there shall be a presumption that such person had caused the dowry death simple what the prosecution will prove is that the person had committed dowry death of a man and it is shown that soon before her death so the expression soon before is very elastic it is not necessary that it is one day one day before the death depending upon facts and so it was soon before has been interpreted such women had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment what should be the cruelty and harassment is for in connection with any demand for dowry and what is the demand for dowry they were defined under the dowry provision this one small presumption I am taking and explaining to you this is a presumption in law in terorim which the court has to presume if those facts are true what are the facts are true whether the death of the women was a homicide or a suicide doesn't matter it could be a suicide or a homicide alright unless it is not a natural death so homicide or suicide and it was within 7 years of marriage then it is because the IPC 304 B because I am not reading the evidence act the main section for dowry death you will find under the indian bill court you may remember that 304 B capital B IPC 113 A 113 B evidence act all sister provisions which came in 1983 so 304 capital B dowry death is defined what dowry death is rule of evidences if these facts are true 7 years marriage her death was not a natural death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry that is all then the court shall presume that the accused has committed dowry death then the burden shifts on that accused to disprove this fact how do you disprove this fact disprove the fact by through the definition of the word disprove here a fact is said to be disproved when after considering the matters before it the court either believes that it does not exist or considers as the non-existence so probable that the prudent man ought under the circumstance of a particular case to act upon the supposition that it does not exist so you see in prude exist exist will come not not not will come in not so this is presumption in law like that there are other presumptions in the NDP there are two presumptions section 35 and 54 presumption is there in special laws these are all presumptions special laws because of paucity of time I don't want to go into those special laws and speak about I just confine myself to the presumptions in the evidence act itself then the may presumption see if you say may presumption mean a discretion is given to the judge to call for proof of this fact or you can say I'll presume this 114 evidence act see my dear friends 114 evidence act is a very important provision which has to be read with the definition of the word prune and you must this is once again a common sense provision 114 evidence act is a common sense provision what does 114 say 114 is a very beautifully worded section 114 the court may presume the existence may presume whereas I when I read 113d shall presume even in 113d it may presume don't worry about it the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to happen regard being had to the common cause of natural events human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case facts of the particular see the particular case is very important is very important so in that particular case this could have happened means the court may presume and the court may call for proof of this fact in circumstances in certain circumstances the creation is vested with the exception the illustrations given in section 114 is not exhausted please understand the illustration given in section 114 is not exhausted illustrations there are so many things you don't may presume there are so many notorious facts can be judicially taken if you fall back upon judicial notice you will find section 56 no fact of which court will take judicial notice need not be proved facts of which judicial notice facts of which court must take judicial notice these are all must so it is not it doesn't mean the court can take judicial notice of whatever the facts stated in section 57 there are certain notorious the fact that in the year 2015 in Madras in which Madras was Maroon the fact that tsunami struck Madras in 2003 whatever it is is all facts which you don't have to be proved at all so these are all facts we need not be proved nor do these facts and 114 is a presumption made presumption where court may presume about the existence of this applying common sense for example you would have got into the for example common sense application you get into a train you would have bought the ticket the court may presume unless it is shown that you was a traveler without ticket this presumption may be required in a mass accident case somebody may say you got into the train where is the proof that you would have bought the ticket sorry sir in that many in all the things my ticket lost the ticket whatever it is the court may often have seen the fact in a certain particular case we may presume in the course of ordinary events in the course of ordinary things the traveler would have purchased the tickets and got into the train this discretion is available when they bought so may presume presumption on facts shall presume presumption dictated by law over which the distinction is very may look very very market distinction between these two genres of presumptions may presume and shall presume and of course in special enactments as I told you in NDP sector north there will be an element there will be a presumption see what had happened to us very interesting the customs act was being implemented those days in Bombay these carriers used to bring silver ingots from Karachi and when the carrier is caught he will say that I don't know that my friend gave this suitcase he said give it to this person in Bombay I brought it to Bombay because it contained silver ingots it will be silver ingots or silver gold or whatever it is smuggling cases used to happen act of non-fascist regime is a principle that applies to criminal law so in cases relating to custody of offending articles like gold, smuggle to gold silver, opm ganja whatever it is mere custody is not the vision there will be an element of consciousness in position of it because act as non-fascist regime means when there is no ministry I didn't know I am merely having custody so how could you put me in jail was it different than fellows who are escaping then there was a law commission report on economic offences loss I think it was this Gajendra Ghatkar's report that report would have given thing that these fellows are coming out easily shift the presumption of minstrelia you shall be presumed to have the guilty mind but the fact that you did not have the guilty mind should be proved by you beyond reasonable doubt this was recommended by the 72 73 law commission report and customs act was amended center like says act was amended all his acts were amended to include a minstrelia presumption 138 capital A of customs act is a minstrelia presumption an NDPS act was formulated that 138 A will come as section 35 of the NDPS act where the minstrelia is that if custody is established then you had the necessary minstrelia is presumed and you shall prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt and not by prepontance of probability so this is broadly my dear friends is the concept of proof and presumptions and I am glad that I hope that this short because these are all subjects over which I keep talking for days on end there is so much of materials to talk about but I think for the present these fundamentals of this proof and presumptions would help the listeners to use the distinction with assumption and presumption assumption is taking it for granted after 10 without people because English is not all language so assumption is taking it for granted and presumption is taking the liberty to assume presumption is the law gives the liberty to assume that this fellow has committed the offence and it is for him to disprove it so the law gives the liberty through a shall presumption to assume or they may presumpt to assume so assumption and presumptions is a very beautiful expressible thing so with this I wind up my lecture I hope that it would have benefited the listeners and viewers thank you Vikas thank you sir just like your name you have actually illuminated the minds of the audience not only on the YouTube Facebook and Zubu the fact that on the YouTube I am seeing that number of viewership is excellent and in fact even on the zoom you will find that there was a consistent the participants didn't leave it the fact that your this is the testimony of that fact and thank you sir we will look forward for more sessions from you that was so insightful and thank you once again and thank you next study for partner ring with us stay safe, stay best Namaskar


And outside the continent now, Western nations will want Russian President Vladimir Putin today that his country will pay ruinous costs for invading Ukraine during an unprecedented one-day trio of NATO, G7 and EU summits that will be attended by US President Joe Biden. The hectic day of summitry to maintain Western unity will kick off at NATO headquarters in Brussels where the transatlantic defence alliance's leaders will agree to ramp up military forces on Europe's Eastern flank. Vladimir Putin has already crossed the red line into barbarism and I think it's now up to NATO to consider together the appalling crisis in Ukraine, the appalling suffering of the people of Ukraine and to see what more we can do to help the people of Ukraine to protect themselves. Nobody can feel safe now. Maybe it will be Poland, maybe it will be Baltic states, but nobody in Europe. Even those countries which are distant from the direct border with Russia, even those countries are not safe today. Actually we are concerned when we see that Russian aggression forces are shelling chemical plants and similar facilities. This could trigger a disaster of large scale, but I personally don't believe that Russian military itself will use chemical or biological weapons. Despite its name, NATO is not simply a geographic alliance. It's a group of countries who stand together because we believe in democracy and the rule of law and the defence of human rights and the values that underpin all of our societies. That's why this illegal, brutal invasion of a friendly democracy in Ukraine by Vladimir Putin is absolutely unacceptable. I think we have to double our efforts. Putin cannot win this war. This is very important to all of us, to the security of NATO as well. And the second thing we need to discuss is how to increase our defence spending and how to do it very wisely.


MSR 17 is in full swing here in Nassau, Bahamas and we're continuing our exciting discussions with Sandra Sealy, CEO of the Fair Trading Commission in Barbados, Miss Sealy, thanks so much for joining us today. Thank you for inviting me. Well, we're going to start off really easy, just tell us a little bit about the Fair Trading Commission. Well, the Fair Trading Commission was established in 2001. We are responsible for utility regulation, consumer protection and fair competition. We regulate telecommunications, electricity and water services in Barbados. Okay, so you are among several other regulators here from all over the world. There are also providers here and others in the industry. Talk about how this conference is going for you and what the biggest takeaway has been so far. Well, this is not, I would say this is not my first GSR conference, but it's great that it is in the Caribbean because it allows a greater number of Caribbean utility regulators to be here. And with that, we get that interaction and we are able to meet and discuss common issues and this is really an excellent opportunity for us to do that. And we realize, I myself realize that we have a lot of shared issues in the Caribbean and if we come together in these forums, we are able to deal with them holistically. You are transitioning right into my next question. Barbados is a small nation like the Bahamas and all of our other Caribbean brothers and sisters. Where do you all fit in in a symposium like this? What are you learning? What are you bringing to the table? I think we bring a lot to the table and it also highlights that us in the Caribbean, we have different issues to the bigger developed countries. So we bring our own particular problems and those problems arise because we are small. So that is why it is good for us to be here. Now, is there anything that you could pinpoint of any of the sessions so far that is really held to any particular issues back in Barbados? I would say, we just started, we only had the official opening yesterday afternoon, but we recognize that there are several issues on the table that are of interest to Barbados, the issue of roaming and seeing if we as a Caribbean, we are lots of islands scattered around along the Caribbean Sea and we are small but each time you travel from one island to the other island you appear a roam in charge. And if we could eliminate that, I think that would bring us as a Caribbean closer together. So that is one thing we are looking at, we are also looking at the issue of over-the-top services and how they are influencing the traditional type of service providers. So those are two main issues that I would think that this session and this forum will allow us to get information that will help us to deal with those issues. Okay, and being a small nation, talk about how organizations like ITU assist with the development of the industry in your country. For example, here in the Bahamas, the Prime Minister just talked about yesterday that the partnership with ITU is assisting them with the Smart Island initiative which will eventually be the Smart Country initiative. Has Barbados benefited from anything like this or what are you looking forward to with the partnership with ITU? Well, it is interesting that you asked that question because it was just this morning that we had a meeting, a small meeting of the Caribbean and the representatives from the ITU. And we talked about that particular issue where what can the ITU do to help us in the Caribbean and we know that we in Barbados have benefited from things like training and that is capacity building is something that we would also want to get benefits from ITU to help us grow and understand because you would realize that resources in the Caribbean, getting the proper resources is expensive. So resources to help us deal with the problems, human resources, those are some of the things that we hope we will get out of this conference and this forum. Perfect, Miss Suley. And also the interaction and the networking is you cannot say how much that assistance that gives us to be able to network and know that there you can call on another person on another island who is having a similar issue to you and you can discuss it and maybe and get information to help you solve the problem. Right, I mean there are 400 people here from more than 80 countries. I think this is an excellent networking opportunity. Thanks so much Miss Sandra Suley, CEO of the Fair Trading Commission in Barbados. Thanks for joining us and all the best with the rest of the conference. Thank you very much. Thanks.


Thanks we had our facilities to utilities to our PMO to our fire that are set in tonight so we can put on this event let's give them a big round of applause. We get to choose each other. I'm a British by birth but American by choice so that means I choose everybody in this room to be my countryman and it's a true honor for me to gather here in friendship with all of you. I stand here in awe of the external gratitude for your service, your bravery and your sacrifice. Should I say my toughest Navy are some was army. Thank the chef who I've done this with so many times and it's been so great that for all that you do for military families. So Jennifer, do you want to say hi? Thank you very much. Thank you so much for having my family and I, the opportunity to be here today. We formed an unbreakable bond through the trials and boot camps that brought us closer together than blood ever took. Folks, it's an honor to tell you about the reason you came. It's just not that. As I said, you represent 1% of the population and defend the rest of us. You are the spirit of this backbone, the sinew, the spine of the country. We are literally not figuring the greatest fighting force in this fighting force in the history of the world as the hyperbole in the history of the world. Lord, we're especially thankful for the privilege to have our Commander in Chief, President Biden and Dr. Biden share this special occasion with our military members and their families. Thank you once again for everyone gathered here this evening. We ask a special blessing upon those who planned and prepared the food.