• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 16, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

DAESH
NIGERIA
NORTH KOREA
DAESH
NORTH KOREA
SYRIA
RUSSIA
TURKEY
YEMEN
CUBA
NORTH KOREA
BRAZIL
BAHRAIN
HONDURAS
DEPARTMENT

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:15 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey guys, welcome to the State Department. It's good to see no teleworking here.

QUESTION: What makes you think that?

MR TONER: Well, I don't know. I mean, technically, I suppose some of (inaudible) --

QUESTION: You call it in all the time. Why --

MR TONER: I'm just saying it's a pretty full house. So take that, Metro. No, I'm just kidding.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Don't mess with Metro.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) In any case, welcome, everyone. So a few things at the top, actually.

First of all, by way of an update, as many of you know, Congress approved a measure setting a deadline of March 17th for the Administration to make a decision regarding atrocities committed by the Islamic State group against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria. The Secretary continues to study the issue of atrocities perpetrated by Daesh and is committed to undertake his assessment in a measured and deliberate way. He recognizes the seriousness of the atrocities committed by this terrorist group as well as the importance of this issue to its victims and survivors. Given the scope and the breadth of the analysis he's contemplating, he will not have a final decision completed by the congressionally mandated deadline tomorrow.

However, this issue is clearly of the utmost importance to him as well as Congress, and we expect him to reach a decision very soon. We don't take lightly the issue of a delay like this, however, more critically neither do we take lightly the gravity of the brutality perpetrated by Daesh on innocent people. So we'll have more to say as soon as possible about that decision.

QUESTION: Perhaps not by the – by tomorrow but very soon? Might he have it this week, or is that out?

MR TONER: I simply don't want to pin him down a deadline. He still is, as I said, considering the evidence, going through all the evidence, and even asking for additional evidence before he makes his decision. So very soon is about as precise as we can get at this point.

I wanted to also note that the United States strongly condemns the terrorist bombing at a mosque today in Maiduguri, the capital of Borno state in northeastern Nigeria. Dozens of people were killed and injured, and we extend our deepest condolences to the families of the latest victims of Boko Haram's senseless brutality.

Boko Haram continues to commit vicious attacks against innocent civilians, including children. It has demonstrated repeatedly its disregard for the lives of tens of thousands it has killed, raped, and injured and the millions it has displaced in the Lake Chad Basin region. The United States will continue to support those affected by Boko Haram's violence through ongoing humanitarian assistance and victim support. And we also remain, obviously, committed to our partners in the Lake Chad Basin region who are leading the fight to end Boko Haram's wanton violence.

And then also, many of you had already requested more information, so I wanted to speak to this at the top as well. It's the news that the DPRK court has convicted U.S. citizen Otto Warmbier. Mr. Warmbier was reportedly charged with, quote, "hostile acts against the DPRK," end quote, and sentenced to 15 years' hard labor. The Department believes that the sentence is unduly harsh for the actions Mr. Warmbier allegedly took. Despite official claims that U.S. citizens arrested in the DPRK are not used for political purposes, it's increasingly clear from its very public treatment of these cases that the DPRK does exactly that. It only underscores the risks associated with travel to North Korea. The Department of State strongly recommends against all travel by U.S. citizens to North Korea.

Let me just repeat that again. The United States and the Department of State strongly recommends against all travel by U.S. citizens to North Korea. We urge any U.S. citizen considering travel to North Korea to read the department's travel warning on travel.state.gov. And now that Mr. Warmbier has gone through this criminal process, we would urge the DPRK to pardon him and grant him special amnesty and immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

And that's all I have. Over to you, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, first let's start with the genocide thing.

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: Why won't he meet this deadline? It's not as if they just – they – he – it's not as if this duty was given to him yesterday or –

MR TONER: Understood.

QUESTION: I mean, it's been months.

MR TONER: Understood. Process behind this decision, and he spoke to this a couple of weeks ago on the Hill, is, by it's nature –

QUESTION: It's already very --

MR TONER: -- sorry, let me finish – by its nature, a very rigorous one. And the Secretary has urged his team here at the department as well as the broader intelligence community, and even the NGO community, to provide as much information and evidence as possible so that he can make the best decision possible. And if this has delayed the process, we believe it's worth it.

QUESTION: Well, but it hasn't – I mean, it hasn't delayed the – that is the process.

MR TONER: That's what I'm saying. So he is not at a point yet where he feels like he has all the information, all the evidence that he needs to make the decision he needs to make.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, there's a couple hundred – several hundred people across the street who don't seem to have –

MR TONER: I understand that.

QUESTION: -- the same reservations that you might have.

MR TONER: I understand that. But this is, again –

QUESTION: Was he – is he approaching this as he – as a prosecutor, like he was in his former – one of his former lives?

MR TONER: No, but I think – I mean, look. First of all, let's separate the very fact that – and everyone uniformly – not only in this country, not only in Congress, not only here in the government, not only around – or rather, but around the world – is appalled by the horrific acts carried out by Daesh against people from a wide variety of religious groups and ethnic backgrounds. I mean, that's – starting from that point. So there's not – let's just remove that from the equation.

That said, determining these kinds of legal definitions, such as genocide and crimes against humanity, requires a very detailed, rigorous legal analysis. He is a lawyer, and of course he's going to – that's going to weigh in on his –

QUESTION: There are a lot of lawyers up on the Hill, though.

MR TONER: I understand that as well, Matt. I certainly appreciate that. But I don't – I won't answer that question.

MR TONER: My only point is that he is – he just wants to be able to make – base his decision on the best evidence available. And he has requested additional evidence, information in order to --

QUESTION: It just seems like there's a lot of evidence already out there. Anyway, as part of this legislation, he's also required to make a determination about the situation with the Rohingyans. Are you aware of that? Is he going to make the deadline for the –

MR TONER: I'm not aware of where that stands – that particular process stands. I'll have to take that question.

QUESTION: You said he had –

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- requested additional information. Has he also gone to Congress and requested additional time to make his determination, or he's just –

MR TONER: Sorry, I believe we're – we're –

QUESTION: -- by fiat not going to make it on time?

MR TONER: No, I believe we're reaching out. I mean, we've been in contact with Congress, but we're also reaching out to let them know we're not going to make the deadline today.

QUESTION: Okay. And –

QUESTION: Can you tell us the legal implications of accepting (inaudible) –

QUESTION: One – can I just –

MR TONER: Yeah, sorry, go – I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Can I just – one more on this.

MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.

QUESTION: This isn't, unfortunately, the first time the State Department and – has missed a deadline, a congressionally mandated deadline. I mean, you were months late on the Human Rights Report, as I recall. Doesn't the Secretary, as a former member of Congress and as the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, feel like he ought to do his utmost to meet deadlines for reports that he wants received?

MR TONER: Of course. I mean, we all – we certainly respect the deadlines that Congress lays down on specific reports, or in this case, decisions about genocide. We take those very seriously. However, we take the process very seriously as well. And so if we need some additional time, a matter of a few days or a week or so, in order to reach what we believe is a more fact-based, evidence-based decision, then we're going to, working in consultation with Congress, ask for that extra time.

QUESTION: Is that what you're looking at, a few days or a week or so?

MR TONER: Again, I think – I wouldn't – certainly don't want to put a specific date or timeframe on it. But we're looking in the immediate future.

QUESTION: But wait a second. You say that you – so you are asking Congress for an extension? Or you're telling Congress, "Sorry, we're not going to" –

MR TONER: We are informing Congress today that we're not going to make that deadline.

QUESTION: All right. Well, then I don't see –

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: That's fair enough. Understood. And people miss deadlines all the time. But I don't see how you can –

MR TONER: Except for you guys.

QUESTION: No. And except for me. Except for us. We never miss deadlines. (Laughter.) But anyway – no, the point is I don't see how you can just go up to – go to Congress and say, "Sorry, we're not going to make it," and at the same time say that you respect their deadline and that you take very seriously their decision –

MR TONER: Well –

QUESTION: -- to set March 17th as the date when this decision was supposed to be made. I mean, you clearly don't respect the deadline if you're just going to tell them you're not going to meet it. And it's hard to see how you take it seriously if you're not going to respect it.

MR TONER: So I would counter your statement with the following: I mean, we have engaged in a very rigorous process, review of the existing evidence up until this point. But we believe we need a bit more time in order to make the best decision with the best evidence available.

QUESTION: All right. Do you know, has anyone –

MR TONER: And so that's not – sorry, so that's not to disrespect in any way, shape, or form the congressionally mandated deadline, but it's simply to say that we feel – the Secretary feels he needs more time.

QUESTION: Right. It's not to say you don't respect it, you're just going to blow through it without – anyway. So do you know, have you gotten – have you gotten any response yet? I mean, is this okay with people – with Congress?

MR TONER: We – I have not heard from – I don't know.

QUESTION: All right. I got one on the North Koreans.

QUESTION: So –

MR TONER: Yeah. I'm sorry, please go ahead.

QUESTION: So if the Secretary was to decide what is going on is a genocide, that would have legal implications for policy, would it not? You're obliged to do more about it?

MR TONER: Well –

QUESTION: I mean, is that a factor in the decision?

MR TONER: So, it's a fair question. So acknowledging that genocide or crimes against humanity have taken place in another country would not necessarily result in any particular legal obligation for the United States. However, we have joined with the international community in recognizing the importance of protecting populations from genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes.

But going back to my broader point with Matt a little while ago, I mean, this is a – would be a decision that would obviously impact greatly on the many people affected by Daesh's terrible and murderous campaign. But fundamentally, everyone agrees that whatever you call what Daesh is carrying out against the ethnic – and religious minorities in that part of the world, it's abhorrent and it needs to be stopped. And frankly, it's not – I mean, we're going to keep the pressure on Daesh, we're going to keep to the same momentum to try to strangle Daesh as quickly as possible. Everyone recognizes already that it's an evil and destructive force.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Genocide is not a measure of scale or of horror, it's the nature of murder.

MR TONER: It is a –

QUESTION: People being targeted for their particular ethnic or religious origin.

MR TONER: Correct, and there's multilateral – so multilateral treaty, the Genocide Convention, defines the term "genocide" – it's the source of related obligations regarding that – and it creates obligations on states to prevent genocide within their territory and to punish genocide, to speak to your question on possible outcomes.

QUESTION: Does the (inaudible) to the first question that it doesn't – does that mean that the legal analysis has come back and that it is the same as the legal analysis that former Secretary Powell got for the Darfur genocide, which is that, yes, what is happening is a genocide, but other than kind of moral obligation or moral responsibility to do anything, it doesn't legally impose – or it doesn't make – it doesn't require – legally require the United States to do anything more than what it's doing now, or in fact, doesn't require it to do anything at all?

MR TONER: Right. I mean –

QUESTION: That's what that – that's what the legal determination was in 2004. Has that determination been made in this case?

MR TONER: I – so again, I don't want to speak to the determination in 2004 necessarily. It is my understanding that acknowledging the genocide or crimes against humanity have taken place would not necessarily result in a particular legal obligation for the United States.

QUESTION: Well, that was – right, but that was the finding in 2004, which was a difference. I mean, one of the reasons why 10 years earlier, in '94 in Rwanda –

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- that nothing was done or said, determination wasn't made, was because there was a sense that it would require something. So that was – that 2004 legal opinion was relatively new in terms of where administrations have come down in their thinking on this. Has that – do you know if that decision has – has there been a legal analysis done and sent to the Secretary which says that a genocide determination would not require –

MR TONER: I'd have to –

QUESTION: You don't know?

MR TONER: I'd have to look into that.

QUESTION: All right.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple more on this?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure thing.

QUESTION: Same topic.

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: You said that this decision would impact greatly on the people affected, the people being slaughtered and so on.

MR TONER: Well –

QUESTION: How so?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean –

QUESTION: Because it creates no legal obligation on your part to do anything more than what you're now doing.

MR TONER: No, but I mean –

QUESTION: And they're either getting slaughtered or they're not. So I don't see how it affects them really.

MR TONER: No, but I – so – sorry, I'm not – I'm talking over you unintentionally. It – we recognize that it matters – whether it's a genocide, whether it's a crime against humanity matters to the victims and survivors of these brutal acts. I mean, certainly it doesn't change the horror of what happened to them, but it's an important recognition or decision regarding what happened to them I guess is how I'd put it.

But again, to go back to the broader point, I mean, this process is separate from our ongoing determination to destroy, degrade Daesh as soon as possible. We feel we're applying pressure on it. We continue to make strong gains against it on the ground in Iraq and Syria, continue to strike it where it pops up in other places like Libya. None of that is going to change with the – with this process or this decision.

QUESTION: Mark, one more.

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: Is it not – Matt cited the years.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is it not the sad truth that multiple and successive U.S. governments have essentially adopted the stance that regardless of whether they determine genocide is occurring in a country, whether Rwanda or South Sudan or Syria or Iraq, that they don't actually feel any obligation to do – to necessarily stop it, that that's just simply not an exercise of U.S. force and will and resources that administrations are – feel that they have to do?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, when I spoke briefly about the Genocide Convention, I mean, it does create obligations on states to prevent genocide within their territory and punish genocide, so there is the accountability aspect of it. I think in this particular case, there may not be – or there will not be a sea change in how we're approaching Daesh. Like I said, we're already very, for lack of a better word, hell-bent on destroying Daesh, removing it from its enclaves in Syria and Iraq, because we already recognize what a murderous, barbaric terrorist group this – it already is. That said, we do take this process very seriously. We recognize its importance, as I said, for the victims and the groups that are affected by this violence, and so we're trying to do it through a process that we believe is as diligent and rigorous as possible.

QUESTION: Mark, just –

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: -- I wonder on the same issue of crimes against humanity –

MR TONER: Yeah. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: -- the congressional vote yesterday also names Bashar al-Assad as a war criminal and calls to – for a trial and so on. It was voted on by, like, 392 members of the House, maybe three opposed. I don't know how many opposed, but very few. Does that put you in a difficult position? Because those who oppose it claim that this is a –

MR TONER: (Coughs.) Excuse me.

QUESTION: -- segue to impose a no-fly zone and things of that nature and you become – and in fact, they're saying that Bashar al-Assad was instrumental in the rise of ISIS, of Daesh, so –

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, so it's a complicated question, but certainly, we believe that given the, again, barbaric crimes and attacks that Assad and his regime have carried out against his own people that there should be as well accountability there. And that's certainly something to pursue. I just would note that we're not at a position yet where we can pursue that. But I think it's going to be very important for the Syrian people as they transition to, we hope, a new government, one chosen by the Syrian people, that ultimately there is some level of accountability for that, for the crimes that have been committed there.

QUESTION: I understand, but on – seeing how –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you came out very strongly against the position of a no-fly zone or even safe havens in the past and the Pentagon as well and maybe your allies, some of your allies, does this – is this like a prelude to possibly do something similar to this, or do you see it – this ever taking place? I mean, in particular to Assad. I mean, in particularly to imposing such a zone or to bring Assad before such a tribunal.

MR TONER: Again, before a decision's been made, I just don't want to preview any actions that this may engender, okay?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Syria?

MR TONER: Sure thing. You have another – did Michel – you – where are you at?

QUESTION: No (inaudible).

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: And I – can I just ask a (inaudible) on the –

MR TONER: Of course, of course, of course, of course. Sorry.

QUESTION: -- and I don't think you're going to have much to say more about the North Korea situation, but I need to get this done.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Yeah.

QUESTION: You are clearly trying to discourage U.S. citizens from going to North Korea.

MR TONER: Did you get that sense? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah, I got kind of the –

MR TONER: Both as a spokesman and as a parent, I –

QUESTION: Kind of resonated with me a little bit.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And the White House said the same thing, including this, like, we repeat, don't go to North Korea.

MR TONER: Oh, is that correct? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Why – if this is – you have in the past – not you personally, but administrations have in the past made it illegal for the – U.S. passports to be used to go to certain countries – well, at least one country that I'm aware of. It was illegal for quite some time to use a U.S. passport to go to Libya during the –

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Qadhafi years. Why don't you just do that here?

MR TONER: Fair question. I mean, normally we do not, as you know --

QUESTION: Yeah, but there is precedent (inaudible).

MR TONER: -- forbid or prohibit the travel --

QUESTION: No, no, you can't prohibit the travel, but you can make it –

MR TONER: -- of Americans –

QUESTION: -- you can do more to discourage it than standing up here and repeating your travel advice –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- not to go or by making it a crime –

MR TONER: Yeah, a crime to –

QUESTION: -- to use a passport to go to North Korea. You can't stop someone from actually going or using it --

MR TONER: Right, right, right, right.

QUESTION: -- but you can make it a crime to do it.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Why not do that here?

MR TONER: I don't know the answer.

QUESTION: Would that include Dennis Rodman (inaudible)? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Again, he's free to make his own decisions. Just – he's certainly free to make his own decisions as is any American citizen. Just given the track record there, we would strongly discourage it.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Okay. Can you update us on what is going on now? Where are we in terms of the ceasefire, in terms of the talk, in terms of conversation that the Secretary may have had with his Russian counterpart or other foreign ministers in the region?

MR TONER: Okay, so a couple of things. We are certainly aware of reports today that Russian military has continued its withdrawal and has withdrawn already a significant portion of its military forces in Syria. Obviously, it's still very early in this process. But it is worth also noting – or it's also worth noting, rather, that the last two days have seen a significant reduction in the level of violence and attacks against civilians in Syria and that the cessation of hostilities continues to largely hold. We certainly want to continue to see more steps that de-escalate tensions on the ground and make that – and make a political process more viable.

But as I said, we have seen a significant reduction – ongoing significant reduction, which brings me to the point that if indeed Russia's actions are intended to bolster the cessation of hostilities and strengthen the political or the proximity talks towards a political process, then this is clearly something that we believe could be helpful to the Syrian people and we would welcome that.

As to your specific question about – I do know that Secretary Kerry has spoken with Foreign Minister Lavrov. I just didn't get a readout of the call. It ended just before I came out, so we'll put out a fuller readout. I can guess the topics are going to be focused on his visit next week, and of course, all things Syria, the proximity talks, the cessation of hostilities, and certainly the withdrawal of Russian forces. But as I said, we'll get a more detailed readout for you guys and put that out later.

QUESTION: Lavrov, a day or so ago, spoke or suggested that there may be a resolution for the Syria crisis and having some sort of federal state that would include the Kurds, the Alawis, and so on. Is that an idea that, to the best of your knowledge if you want to share with us, that was discussed with Secretary Kerry? Is it something that the United States would support ultimately at some point?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, I – a couple of thoughts on that. One is – excuse me, I apologize. Thank you. We are focused on advancing a negotiated political transition and a – towards an inclusive government that is capable of serving the interests of all the Syrian people. We've also been very clear that we're committed to the unity and territorial integrity of Syria. But ultimately, how that looks is going to be a process that's going to have to be decided by the Syrian people as we move forward.

QUESTION: Will –

QUESTION: I have one more question, and then then I'll cede. Yesterday or – in fact, yesterday or the day before, the spokesman for the high committee, the opposition committee that emerged from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Alloush, said that Assad must go or be killed. I mean, is that the kind of – I mean, this is – doesn't really leave a great deal of room. It says that he's got to go or be killed. I mean, he used those words that are really quite –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- sort of definitive in Arabic.

MR TONER: I mean – Sure, Said – so given the enormity of the conflict and the suffering on – certainly on the side of the Syrian people and among the opposition, it's not surprising that there are – the rhetoric, frankly, on both sides – but the rhetoric's going to be pretty harsh, that – and no one is unaware of the challenges that need to be overcome in order to get any kind of political transition – political process towards a political transition, rather, underway.

But ultimately, we believe that if the HNC – if the regime stays in Geneva, continue to talk, engage, we hope that they can reach a resolution. I'm not going to predict how that's going to look. We have been very clear how we feel about Assad's future, but again, we have been – also been clear that we're not going to let that fact be an impediment to making progress along the way. So that's how I'd answer that.

Please. You have a question.

QUESTION: Just going to the question of the possibility of a federal state in Syria --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in which there would be --

MR TONER: Yeah. Thanks for bringing that back up.

QUESTION: -- sections – yeah – dedicated to, presumably, the Kurds, the Alawis, and others.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: You said that – you repeated what I think has been your stance for a long time, that you are in favor of the unity and territorial integrity of Syria. That, however – does that, in your view, obviate the possibility of a federal Syria divided up along the lines I just described?

MR TONER: I just – what I want to make clear – we've also seen – reason I'm glad to revisit it – we've also seen reports about – from Syrian Kurds that they want to declare a federal region in Syria as well. And in response to that, I would just say we've been very clear that we won't recognize any kind of self-autonomous – or self-rule, semi-autonomous zones in Syria.

And to your broader question, as I said, really this is something that needs to be discussed and agreed upon by the relevant parties in Geneva, but then broadly more accepted by the Syrian people themselves. It's not necessarily for us or any of the stakeholders to make that determination for the Syrian people.

QUESTION: If – you can have an opinion, though, and you just made clear that you wouldn't --

MR TONER: What I'm talking about – sorry. What I'm talking about is the declaration or – of semi-autonomous zones in northern Syria, which is what the – some among the Kurds --

QUESTION: Yeah, but if they agree on it, you're saying you still won't accept it?

MR TONER: Not if it's – again, that's them agreeing on it. It's not the Syrian people writ large agreeing on it.

QUESTION: No, I know. But you say that you're – it's up to the Syrians to decide how they want to govern themselves, right?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: So if all the Syrians get together – and I recognize that this is unlikely – but if all the Syrians get together and decide they want a federal-style state with semi-autonomous or autonomous zones, you're saying they can't do that?

MR TONER: No, I – look, I – I mean, I'm not going – (a) that's about a --

QUESTION: You said you won't recognize any --

MR TONER: -- thousand miles down the road here from where we are today. But I thought I was clear in saying that ultimately, the – it's up to the Syrian people collectively – or through their representatives, rather – to determine what their own system of government looks like.

QUESTION: Right, but then you started by saying --

MR TONER: No, what I was going to say – sorry, and I'm just speaking to reports --

QUESTION: You mean before they --

MR TONER: Exactly.

QUESTION: Before they come to a decision themselves --

MR TONER: Exactly. Exactly.

QUESTION: -- you're not going to recognize any group --

MR TONER: The comments that were made about establishing semi-autonomous zones, we believe --

QUESTION: Prior to --

MR TONER: Prior to that, right.

QUESTION: Well, let me just make it absolutely --

MR TONER: Sorry, okay.

QUESTION: Because this has caused a big stir in Geneva and in Syria, Turkey, elsewhere. You're saying that what you're opposed to is any group right now – prior to an agreement between Syrians writ large about how they're going to govern themselves, you are opposed to any group declaring themselves or declaring an autonomous or semi-autonomous federal zone. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: But should, through negotiation, the Syrians themselves decide that this is what – the way they want to go, you would not oppose it. Is that correct?

MR TONER: I believe that's correct. I mean, that's part of their own – again, their representatives reaching, through a process, that determination.

QUESTION: All right. And when you talk about a zone like this that you would oppose, does that mean – what if they say, "We just want to mark out our little area here, and until there is a central government or a government that – in Damascus or wherever the capital may or may not be in the future, we want to run ourselves" – you would be opposed to that? Because that's what exists now. In fact, you guys were supporting that kind of thing, where you would go into these quote-unquote "liberated villages" or you would assist the people who were running these liberated municipalities in local governance.

MR TONER: So part of that is the de facto situation on the ground, but what we have been I think pretty clear about is that as these areas are liberated from Daesh, we want to see – recognizing the inherent challenges of this, but we want to see as quickly as possible a return to some form of local governance --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- that allows all the displaced people to come back.

QUESTION: Right. But let's remember, when this started – I think we're all in this room old enough to remember when this started – it wasn't liberating from Daesh or ISIL. It was liberating from the Assad regime.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: And you were actively encouraging these municipalities and these local governments to set up their own autonomous, essentially, areas. Now you're saying that's no longer okay?

MR TONER: Again, I think what we don't want to see are, again, self-declared, semi-autonomous –

QUESTION: So it's changed now. Because that's what you were – literally in 2011, '12, you guys were encouraging that kind of thing. You were telling these local people who were opposed to Assad, "Go ahead and do this." I mean, that was the whole – one of the main points of the U.S. –

MR TONER: But Matt, I mean, we recognize, given where we're at today, the need to create the conditions whereby there can be some kind of political transition. And if you've got a bunch of self-declared, semi-autonomous zones, that's, we believe, not conducive to creating those kinds of conditions.

QUESTION: So just to –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- follow up on that, if I understood your response to Matt's question correctly, if representatives of the Syrian people ultimately come to an agreement among themselves regarding the dividing up of the country – whether it's exactly as you phrased it, semi-autonomous, et cetera, or whether it's some other division – that's okay with you guys as long as they come up with that themselves? You just don't want people to declare autonomous zones prior to such an agreement, correct?

MR TONER: Exactly. I mean, I – I mean, ultimately, whatever comes out of this process, this political process that they're engaged in in Geneva – the very beginning stages, admittedly – that is for the parties involved to reach consensus on and determine. But –

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Sorry, just to finish.

QUESTION: Please.

MR TONER: But as I said, the creation of these kinds of zones now we believe only – and we've been very clear about our belief in the territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and we believe that the creation of these kind of semi-autonomous zones now would be – would frankly be a threat to that.

QUESTION: Why?

MR TONER: Well, because you've got de facto enclaves within the territory of Syria that are not necessarily part of the long-term political process.

QUESTION: So when you say – when you talk about how you favor territorial integrity and the unity of Syria, that means you don't actually – you, the U.S. Government, don't actually now favor a federal system for Syria. Correct?

MR TONER: Again –

QUESTION: Unless they decide that themselves.

MR TONER: -- unless they decide – yeah. I don't – it's not – it's not for us to determine whatever they come out with. But at this point, for certain groups within Syria to declare this region or that region as semi-autonomous, part of their own enclave, we believe is not conducive to –

QUESTION: Okay, but –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- if they ultimately decide to do that –

MR TONER: Again, I –

QUESTION: -- of their own volition, that's their choice?

MR TONER: That's their choice.

QUESTION: And you'd be okay with that?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So then final – sorry, final thing on this: Is it still the policy of the U.S. Government that Bashar al-Assad should – that the time has come from Bashar al-Assad to step aside? Or is it conceivable to you that if the Syrian people decide to have a federal system with Bashar al-Assad staying and running one chunk of it – is that acceptable to you, if that's their choice?

MR TONER: Our position on Assad has not changed. We believe he should go. But as the Secretary has said many times, we don't necessarily believe you should throw the baby out with the bathwater – that the institutions of the Syrian Government should remain intact in some way, shape, or form in order to provide that stability, frankly, for the population, especially recovering from five years of war.

QUESTION: So it is the position of the U.S. Government that –

MR TONER: We believe –

QUESTION: -- Bashar al-Assad cannot be a ruler of a subset or a smaller chunk of Syria –

MR TONER: You're taking me down on –

QUESTION: -- if that's what the Syrians decide?

MR TONER: But you're taking into like – look, I mean, we're getting way ahead of ourselves in terms of discussing possible outcomes and possible scenarios – perfectly legitimate scenarios, but I'm just saying, like, it's not for me to determine what any kind of future political structure may emerge from the talks in Geneva. All I can say is that we've been very clear that we don't believe that Assad can be part of any future for Syria. But as I also said earlier, we have not let that be a 20-foot brick wall that allows us to make no progress because there are others who believe differently. So ultimately, that's going to be a decision that we think will be resolved by the negotiating parties.

QUESTION: Mark –

QUESTION: Mark –

QUESTION: Are you confident now that the Russians –

MR TONER: Sorry, I'll get to you.

QUESTION: -- are serious about their withdrawal from Syria?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, I think – Michel, I think we've – we are –

QUESTION: Because you said that –

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- you saw that they withdrew some –

MR TONER: Well, we have seen it. We've seen some positive signs. We don't have all the – we don't know for certain yet, to be perfectly honest, the extent of the withdrawal and what it all means. We've said this many times before. Words are one thing, actions are another. But if indeed the intention behind these – behind President Putin's announcement and certainly the withdrawal of these forces is to put more strength or force behind the political process and the cessation of hostilities, then that is something clearly we support.

QUESTION: But based on what you saw during the last 48 hours, what's your sense?

MR TONER: Well, I think I just said we've seen a sharp reduction in violence, although obviously that reduction in violence is since the onset of the cessation of hostilities, but that we've seen even more reduction in violence and attacks against civilians in Syria. I think the Pentagon spoke to the fact that some of the airstrikes carried out by Russia were against ISIL targets. That's a positive sign. But we just don't have all the pieces in front of us to make any kind of determination yet.

Please, Michael.

QUESTION: A question on –

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- Russian sanctions. Yesterday, Assistant Secretary Nuland told the Senator Foreign Relations Committee that Ukraine's inability to enact reforms is causing support from European states to waver on sanctions against Russia. And separately, Senator Corker told Sputnik that Russia's decision to withdraw from Syria may impact the EU's views on renewing sanctions against Russia in June.

The question is: Is the U.S. reaching out to European states asking them, pressuring them, demanding them to maintain these sanctions against Russia?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, Michael, first of all – excuse me – so there's two sets of sanctions against Russia regarding Ukraine and its actions in Ukraine. One obviously involves the illegal annexation of Crimea, and then the second involves its actions in eastern Ukraine.

With all due respect to Senator Corker and his comments about the Europeans, those are a completely separate piece, and we've been very clear to delineate that separation from the situation in Syria – just two different issues. And so it's very clear that what we want – are looking for Russia to do in terms of sanctions relief. One is full implementation of the Minsk agreement – or Minsk commitments, rather.

Now, I believe Assistant Secretary Nuland was speaking about the fact that, certainly, it is incumbent on the Ukrainian Government to also enact political, economic reforms as part of its efforts to fully implement Minsk. So there's obligations, responsibilities on both sides –

QUESTION: Sure.

MR TONER: -- on all sides. But that's the way to sanctions relief. Now, in terms of support for Europe, we've been deeply appreciative of Europe's solidarity on this issue. We believe that solidarity exists. We believe also that we can get to a full implementation of Minsk, that we can work through this with Russia and get to a place where Minsk is fully implemented. That doesn't, obviously, address the sanctions that remain on Crimea.

QUESTION: Well, Assistant Secretary Nuland's comment of the – she's worried – it seems like she's concerned about European support for those sanctions because Ukraine's not meeting their obligations. We want Ukraine to do more.

MR TONER: Right, right.

QUESTION: So she raises concern. Are you doing – how are you addressing that concern? Are you reaching out to Europe –

MR TONER: Well, I mean –

QUESTION: -- and asking them to –

MR TONER: Sure, fair question. So again, we are working with the Ukrainian Government to offer whatever council, advice that we can provide as they face some of these tough economic and political choices. That support is ongoing. We also, and the Europeans – the Germans, the French, others – have also been very engaged with President Poroshenko's government as they address, again, some of these reform efforts. And it's – we want to see a full implementation of Minsk that involves actions that Ukrainian Government need to take, although it has taken quite a few, but also we need to see the Russian and the Russian-backed separatists live up to their side of the bargain, which is full access to – for OSCE monitors, which is a full and credible ceasefire –

QUESTION: Do you know which – what was she –

MR TONER: -- and then also – sorry – the re-establishment of Ukraine's rightful international border. Sorry, go ahead.

QUESTION: Who is she referring to – like, why did she say "wavering support"? Which European nations is she worried or is the State Department worried about?

MR TONER: Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to characterize or name names.

QUESTION: But – yeah.

MR TONER: I mean, it certainly – these sanctions also have an impact on the countries who have implemented them as well as on Russia. But we believe that and we're appreciative of Europe's solidarity on this issue and we believe that solidarity will continue.

QUESTION: So you haven't had to press them or reaffirm that –

MR TONER: We are – no, I mean, look, we are in constant – I mean, we're in constant consultation with Europe on the best way forward in Ukraine.

QUESTION: Turkey?

QUESTION: And a follow-up?

MR TONER: Oh, you have a follow-up? Go ahead, and then we'll get to Turkey. Please.

QUESTION: All right, thank you. Syria is pulling out – I mean Russia is pulling out its troops from Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And you guys were working together there against ISIL, right? Russia's pulling out its troops because they say they pretty much did everything they had to do there against ISIL, but the international coalition stays there. So I mean, how does department sees that? I mean, do the department – does the department think that Russia's job was done in Syria?

MR TONER: That's a good question. Look, I'm not going to speculate on what the motivation was for President Putin's announcement. That's really a question best asked of him. We all, during – or in the lead-up to the cessation of hostilities, had serious concerns about the targets that Russian jets were primarily hitting in and around Aleppo, certainly, but throughout the country, that they were more focused on opposition groups and not against Daesh. We also believe that, clearly, Daesh is not defeated in Syria, so we need to keep up the pressure on Daesh. The coalition – the anti-Daesh coalition is going to keep doing what it's doing in support of those various groups who are fighting, working to destroy Daesh, degrade Daesh, defeat Daesh on the battlefield. That job hasn't ended in our view.

QUESTION: So you're calling on them to come back?

MR TONER: Again, if Russia – and we've said this all along – if Russia were serious about playing a constructive role against Daesh –

QUESTION: They're welcome back?

MR TONER: -- then we would have that discussion.

QUESTION: But then, I mean, because I see two narratives here, right, from Russia and from the U.S. So that makes me think either, like, you guys had different goals or you are working together and now you're going to plan out a new strategy together? I mean, what's the plan here?

MR TONER: Again, I'm not going to speak for the Russian Government and the actions it's taken and the motivation or the reasons behind those actions or the rationale.

QUESTION: No, but I mean, the U.S. as a partner here.

MR TONER: But I'm saying for us, where we have seen some successful collaboration with the Russians and with all of the members of this ISSG, this International Syria Support Group, has been in establishing an actual, credible cessation of hostilities that has reduced the violence on the ground, that has allowed humanitarian aid to get to some of these besieged parts – need to do more – and then also to get Geneva – or get proximity talks back up and running in Geneva. That's progress given where we started from.

QUESTION: But is that support –

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MR TONER: That's okay. That said, we're very much aware of the fact that the fight, the struggle against Daesh in Syria – both in Syria and Iraq, while we have made, we believe, progress in the past year, is still ongoing.

QUESTION: I mean, but do we see here that the support group is actually working together? Or I mean, the – or let me put it in a different way.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is Secretary Kerry traveling to Moscow to address the issue to see what the future holds or because maybe –

MR TONER: So – sorry.

QUESTION: -- they are not working –

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, look, this is –

QUESTION: -- together in a way they were supposed to be working in this issue?

MR TONER: So again, I think he's traveling there because, as he said yesterday, this is a critical moment for Syria, for the process that we have tried, the ISSG has tried, to put in place or put in place. And so as we've done throughout this process since, frankly, UNGA, and even before UNGA, is work as closely and collaboratively as possibly with all the members of the ISSG, but especially with Russia. And so that's the motivation behind next week's trip. And we're going to continue to consult with them going forward to try to consolidate on this political process, the cessation of hostilities moving forward.

So you had Turkey, and then I'll get to you, Nike. Oh –

QUESTION: I got some Syria stuff for you.

MR TONER: If we're not done with Syria, let's finish with Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So we had a story out of Moscow that looked at open-source information including television video of Russian aircraft returning from – or reported to be returning from Syria. And my colleagues there came up with the conclusion that about 15 aircraft appear to have come back. Does that square with your information?

MR TONER: I just don't have the numbers in front of me, Arshad, so I mean –

QUESTION: Okay. And do you –

MR TONER: And the Pentagon may have a better assessment.

QUESTION: Okay. And one other one and it's probably the wrong place to ask, but do you have any reason to believe that Russia is not sending additional aircraft to Syria? In other words, some might be leaving but other ones might be arriving, or you just don't know?

MR TONER: We don't know, and again, it's one of the reasons why we – I heavily caveated my assessment. What we've seen thus far seems to be promising, but we're going to have to give this time.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Russian state media is reporting that Russia is now arming the PYD, adopting the same tactic, in a sense, as the Americans fighting ISIS through Kurdish militia. Do you welcome this decision to adopt your tactics?

MR TONER: I haven't seen it. I'd have to look at it and see what they're doing. And we've not ever armed or provided arms to the PYD.

QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Please. Please.

QUESTION: Mark, there was a letter signed in Turkey by academicians about two months ago, and you talk about it then here.

MR TONER: Yeah, I remember.

QUESTION: And now today or yesterday, three of those academics got arrested for signing this petition, but it looks like numbers shows about thousand academics, 1,100 of them signed the letter and about hundreds – 471 of them under investigation; 156 of them under legal investigation. There are terminations, suspensions, resignations. So there is a clearly witch hunt against them just because they signed this petition. I wanted to ask if you have any comment on this.

MR TONER: Well, I would just – sure. I just would say we see these actions as part of a troubling trend in Turkey whereby official bodies, law enforcement and judicial authorities, are being used to discourage legitimate political discourse. And in any democratic society, when critical opinions should be encouraged – or, rather, critical opinions should be encouraged and definitely not silenced. So we would just urge the Turkish authorities to ensure their actions, as we've said many times of late, uphold universal democratic values and are in our – that are enshrined, rather, in Turkey's constitution.

QUESTION: So this talking point has been the same talking points over two months. I don't think there is a single new word in this. And while hundreds of academics --

MR TONER: Being rather harsh. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I am pretty sure. And hundreds of hundreds of academics are getting arrested, and Mr. Erdogan just today said basically that columnists, or journalists, or anyone should be also tried under the terrorism charges for their writings and all that. Clearly, he advocates for new terror legislation, which he can easily do, his government, probably within next few days.

And finally, today, there's a Chris Stevenson – he is a British academic who also – about to deported because couple of Nowruz invitations --

MR TONER: I'm not aware of that, but --

QUESTION: -- found in his bag.

MR TONER: Look, I'm not aware of that latest report, but I don't know what to add other than to say we have concerns about this climate, if you will, whereby legitimate, critical voices, editors, academics, what have you, are being discouraged from engaging in public discourse. It's troubling. We raise it with Turkey.

QUESTION: Mr. Erdogan's coming to Washington, D.C. He's planned, scheduled to come in two weeks.

MR TONER: That's right, for the – yeah.

QUESTION: I think there is no meeting scheduled yet, but do you think that these issues should be raised with him when he's in – he will be in town?

MR TONER: Well, again, without even confirmation that he's actually coming, and certainly recognizing that he'd be meeting at the White House and meeting with the President, I don't want to speak to what the agenda might be, except to say that we talk about a wide range of issues with Turkey, and we don't shy away from discussing human rights, certainly with our close partners and allies.

QUESTION: Are you sure he'd get a meeting at the White House if he did come?

MR TONER: I'm not sure. I really don't want to speak to – I just don't have clarity on that.

In the back, sir.

QUESTION: Sure, thanks a lot. Inner City Press. I want to ask about Yemen and something about the UN.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: On Yemen, yesterday, Mr. Kirby said that we welcome the fact that there's a cessation of hostilities. And then, as I'm sure you know, there was a big airstrike in Haja province – some people say 41 killed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- some say 107. What do you say to that? And related back to the genocide question, also still on Yemen, Sudan is part of the coalition. Sudan has troops in Yemen with the U.S.-supported coalition. And I'm wondering, how is that – does that – does the genocide finding as to Omar al-Bashir in Darfur have any implication for the U.S. not being part of a coalition or militarily cooperating with a government whose head of state is charged with genocide by the ICC and was found by Colin Powell to --

MR TONER: So to your first question, we're certainly aware of the reports that civilians may have been killed or injured during a strike, I believe, near a market in Haja province. I can't at this time – cannot verify the specifics. We remain deeply concerned by the devastating toll of the crisis in Yemen, both in terms of civilian casualties, but also, obviously, in terms of the humanitarian situation that Yemen faces. We urge all sides to comply with obligations under international humanitarian law.

Speaking to the broader peace process, as you know, Secretary Kerry was just there. I was with him over the weekend, as was poor Dave here. And we were on a trip to --

QUESTION: You were.

MR TONER: -- Saudi Arabia – what's that? – in Saudi Arabia. But one of the things that we discussed – he discussed, rather, with both the Saudi – His Royal Highness King Salman, also the crown prince, and the deputy crown prince as well as Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir – they talked about the need for a political solution to the situation in Yemen. And so we support the UN efforts to that end.

In terms of your second question, I'm actually – I just don't know the specifics about that or what prohibits us – you're saying why we would not have been part of this, are we prohibited from taking part in that?

QUESTION: No, no, I guess I was saying – you were saying that there – or people were saying in this first round that there were some legal implications if you make a finding of genocide. And I don't know if those include not working with --

MR TONER: But I'm not sure whether they pertain to --

QUESTION: -- the government who --

MR TONER: I'd have to – yeah, I can take that question. I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you know – just one other – because I think the question was taken yesterday.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about this corruption case about the UN. Today, in the Southern District of New York, the former deputy permanent representative of the Dominican Republic pled guilty and has pledged to cooperate against the former president of the General Assembly, John Ashe. I wanted to know the State Department's position on it, and also on the Government Accountability Project. They wrote a letter – a public letter to the U.S. Mission to the UN urging them to get involved in opposing retaliation by the UN against the press that has been reporting on the corruption scandal. I think that some members of Congress are actually now – but I haven't seen anything from the State – from the U.S. mission. So I'm wondering, is the State Department aware of the corruption case, and also separately of this GAP letter, and what's their response to it?

MR TONER: I would imagine we're aware. I'm not, unfortunately. I apologize we haven't gotten back to you on that. We'll take it. Nike and then you, Matt, if that's okay. Nike, go ahead.

QUESTION: On Cuba human rights.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: It would be very much a focal point for President's historical visit. Do you have any – could you please give us an update on the status of the political prisoners' release? And also, could you comment on reports from opposition activists that there is short-term detention of up to 300 activists over the weekend?

MR TONER: Sure. I do know that there was the release of some political prisoners, and we certainly welcome the recent release of these political prisoners. It's our belief that these individuals should never have faced incarceration in the first place for simply expressing their views peacefully. But we do remain, as you note, concerned about the continued holding of political prisoners as well as the practice of arbitrary short-term detentions clearly aimed at silencing peaceful dissent. We're going to continue to press this issue with the Cubans. We're going to continue seek more progress on the human rights front, and it's certainly going to be front and center during the visit next week.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up –

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- on a earlier question on that American student. Did anyone from American consulate or protecting power on the ground contact him?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And could you give us an idea of his well-being?

MR TONER: So we did. We do have a Privacy Act waiver signed because we were able to get a representative of our protecting power, which is the Swedish Embassy in Pyongyang, and they were actually present – they were actually able to visit him in prison but also were present at his sentencing. And we're going to remain in very close coordination with the Swedes on this matter. It is my understanding that he was in reasonably good health.

QUESTION: I've got actually four --

MR TONER: Wow.

QUESTION: But they're extremely brief. I guarantee it. Probably less than a minute.

MR TONER: Yes, no, maybe?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: The former president of Brazil, President Lula, has just been appointed to be chief of staff to the current president of Brazil, which affords him a degree of immunity from potential corruption charges. Do you guys have any thoughts on that, or is it purely an internal Brazilian manner? That's one.

MR TONER: My guess is it's an internal Brazilian matter. But if we do, I'll let you know.

QUESTION: Okay. Two. The answer that Kirby gave yesterday on Bahrain and the detention of this woman activist and her child has elicited some disappointment from human rights groups, advocates, who would like to see the U.S. be stronger on calling on the Bahrainis to release this woman. Do you have anything more to say than what you said yesterday? Are you, in fact, calling for the Bahrainis to release her?

MR TONER: What we're strongly urging is for them to follow due process in this case in particular and abide by their commitments to transparent judicial proceedings.

QUESTION: So you don't think she should be released immediately?

MR TONER: Again, what we'd like to see is just due process carried out here in a transparent fashion. And we're obviously monitoring her case closely.

QUESTION: Can you say why you don't think that she should be released? I mean, do you think that there's some – that there's a possibility that the detention is legitimate and that charges she might face are warranted? I guess I just don't understand --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- why in previous cases --

MR TONER: Sure, sure, sure. I understand what you're saying.

QUESTION: -- you guys have called for detainees to be released and in this one you're not.

MR TONER: I mean, without getting into a legal discussion, she has had charges leveled against her. So it's really incumbent on the Bahraini judicial system or legal system to obviously give her – afford her due process. That's what is our focus is on.

QUESTION: And you have confidence that that can happen?

MR TONER: We're going to continue to watch the case very closely and let them know if we believe it's not being carried out.

QUESTION: That sounds like a no to me. Moving on, Honduras. There was yet another murder of an indigenous rights activist there, an associate of the woman who was killed just recently. One, what do you have to say about that, if anything? And secondly, are you guys ready yet to call for an independent investigation, or do you think that, as you apparently do in the case of Bahrain, that the Government of Honduras is capable of conducting its own independent – or its own investigation in finding justice for the murder victims?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, I don't have the details on this latest murder yet. We're still – obviously seen reports and we're gathering information about it. We call on the Honduran Government to carry out a prompt, thorough, transparent investigation, ensure that those – and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. And we've also offered and continue to offer any support we can provide to bring these perpetrators to justice.

QUESTION: And given the fact that it's widely recognized that impunity is a problem and that lack of due process is a problem and that transparency is a problem, I mean, why not take a stronger stance if you want to see justice be done?

MR TONER: Well, again, we do have strong concerns about the murder of the civil society activist. We do want to see, obviously, an investigation carried out. We'll have to wait for the results of that investigation before we – to kind of determine next steps.

QUESTION: All right. And then the last one, which is also very brief, and this has to do with the judge in the email case, in one of the email cases, allowing – granting Judicial Watch, I think it is –

MR TONER: Oh, right.

QUESTION: I can't remember the term. It's a very easy one for crime watchers – oh, discovery. And as part of the discovery, they want to depose a number of people, current and former officials. I'm just wondering, on the current officials that they want to take depositions from – Under Secretary of State for Management, I believe, and some – and others, a couple other people who were around at the time of Secretary Clinton but are still here, career people. Does the department have a view on whether or not these people should give depositions?

MR TONER: So we can't comment on this because it's a matter of ongoing litigation. We do have – or we're aware of the filing and we're looking at it, reviewing it, but I'd have to refer you to the court filing itself for any details beyond what we can say, which is we can't comment on ongoing –

QUESTION: Okay. Quite apart from this –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Quite apart from this specific case then, are there any rules or does the department have any kind of standards or restrictions on whether its employees can be deposed and – or whether they should go ahead if they are deposed and –

MR TONER: Given that's a legal question, let me take it.

QUESTION: Can you look into it?

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just in general though.

MR TONER: Yeah, of course. No, I just want to be precise.

Thanks. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:23 p.m.)

# # #