Ok, Anthony Dworkin is indeed, a man held in high esteem at openDemoracy, and is certainly more learned than I. However, why should it be down to a layman like me to point out a few basic facts to which my learned friend has seemingly overlooked? I'm no lawyer, but is hearsay evidence admissible in a British court of law? I think not. So why is that exceptable for the Hague? As far as I know, anonymous witnesses are not admissible as evidence in a British court either, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But, why is that acceptable for the Hague, and for you? Is that what you call 'justice'? Since when has the Security Council have the power to create a court, tell me, when? They have no right going around constructing courts, willy-nilly - the General Assembly is the proper place for such things. Why should a layman like me point out such things? I thought Dworkin's was in favour of human rights and all that - obviously not. Why won't Anthony tell us what he really thinks? That is, when it comes to fighting his causes, tribunals that fall far short of Western standards of justice are ok for those barbarians 'over there', but not ok for the civilised peoples of the West. What other possible reason could it be? I rest my case.