First, Dr. Rutherford, if I may, in Article 5, with the overwhelming argument of humanitarian intent that is interpreted as victim assistance obligations, nations that actually use them in their conflict area and then as the conflict has evolved where civilian or non-combatant casualties are due to these weapons, is there an international responsibility that can be applied to the nations that deliver those weapons to compensate victims?
Premièrement, monsieur Rutherford, parlons de l'article 5. Il contient indiscutablement une intention humanitaire qui prend la forme des obligations d'assistance aux victimes. Si à la suite d'un conflit ces armes font des victimes civiles ou non combattantes, est-ce que les nations qui ont utilisé ces armes dans les zones de conflit ont une responsabilité internationale et l'obligation de dédommager les victimes?