This Master Class is a joint venture between the Geoffrey Nice Foundation, University of Amsterdam and the Serbian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. It was held between 04 July and 15 July at the Inter-University Centre (IUC) in Dubrovnik, Croatia.

The annual Master Class - three consecutive years to date and continuing - is run in Dubrovnik on a non-profit basis. Faculty members are reimbursed for their travel and are provided with student level lodging in Dubrovnik. They receive no teaching fees.

Ten students from the Balkan region and from The Netherlands receive scholarships made available by Erasmus Plus through the Access Europe (a University of Amsterdam/Free University venture); one third of the students receive scholarships from their professional training organisations / employers (Inner Temple London, Lincoln’s Inn London, UK Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Defence of Netherlands). Other students pay fees from their own funds.



This Master Class addressed the new challenges humanity has been facing after the end of the Cold War 25 years ago. It explored military, political, diplomatic, humanitarian and legal responses to political violence and mass atrocities in armed conflicts and in state oppression based on four case studies – Iran, North Korea, Gaza and the Balkans.



Iran’s “constitutional” monarchy was brought to an end by the Revolution of 1978-79. On the 15th November 1979, the Islamic State of Iran, based on the Constitution that gave Muslim Supreme Leader Khomeini unlimited power, was established. After the revolution, between 1981 and 1988, a large number of supporters of the previous regime were arrested and brought before Islamic courts. Many were executed. The new regime reacted with great violence against any form of protest or opposition to the supreme leader and his followers. Aside from the internal tensions, the Islamic Republic of Iran had been engaged in a major war with neighbouring Iraq from September 1981 onwards. After the Islamic Republic halted the July 1988 incursion into its territory by Mujahideen forces from Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa. This fatwa established Death Commissions that were to sentence to death not only People’s Mujahideen of Iran (MKO) members whom they considered mohareb[waging war on God], but also other political opposition groups.

The Death Commissions were made up of a religious judge, the local prosecutor and a representative of the Ministry of Intelligence, along with other state officials. They interrogated those who were suspected of not subscribing to the Islamic faith and opposing the new regime. Those who maintained non-conforming views were executed. The only exceptions were “public heretics” (those who were not born to a Muslim father), to allow them to convert to Islam, on pain of death; those who refused were tortured. Innate heretics - those born Muslims, who had left the faith - were executed, including those who agreed to return to Islam. Victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran were diverse. Women in prison were segregated from men and forced to wear black chadors. Certain interrogators considered them “unclean” and refused to touch them, and some of them were beaten in sacks. Minors were imprisoned for political offences; some aged fourteen to sixteen. Children as young as twelve were converted into repenters and made to execute their fellow prisoners. Even though Iran signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, young children were hanged, lined in front of firing squads, or even killed under torture just like other political prisoners. Families of political prisoners attested to brutal treatment at the hands of agents of the regime. For some, the only visit was the one prior to the prisoner’s execution. Many witnesses reported religious or ethnic discrimination in addition, particularly against Kurds and Bahá'is, who faced continuous persecution. Other victims included opposition groups of the Islamic supreme leader and communists. Islamic Republic of Iran has never been compelled to deal with the mass atrocities form 1980s by the international community. In 2012, the Iran diaspora established an informal People’s Tribunal for Iran with hearings held in London and The Hague.


North Korea

Since the division of the Korean peninsula in 1945 into South Korea - the ‘Republic of Korea’ and North Korea - the ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ (DPRK) - North Korean citizens were exposed to violations of almost every aspect of their human rights. According to the Report of the UN Commission of Inquiry “systematic, widespread, and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, its institutions and officials” at a scale without parallel in the contemporary world - including extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions, and other sexual violence. Citizens are denied the right to have access to information from independent sources. State-controlled media are the only permitted sources of information. Access to television and radio broadcasts, as well as to the Internet, is severely restricted, and all media content is heavily censored and must comply with directives issued by the Workers’ Party of Korea. A special unit of the State Security Department for covert intelligence and digital operations use sophisticated, imported monitoring devices to detect mobile phone users who tried to make calls out of the country. Individuals whose conversations were overheard could be arrested if they were found calling someone in South Korea, or if they requested money to be sent to them. According to the above-mentioned UN Commission of Inquiry report the State operates an all-encompassing indoctrination machine that takes root from childhood to propagate an official personality cult and to manufacture absolute obedience to the Supreme Leader (Suryong), effectively to the exclusion of any thought independent of official ideology and State propaganda. The government uses threats of detention, forced labour, and public executions to generate fearful obedience, and imposes harsh restrictions on freedom of information and movement, both within the country and across its borders. The government also practices collective punishment for supposed anti-state offences, effectively enslaving hundreds of thousands of citizens, including children, in prison camps and other detention facilities where they face deplorable conditions and forced labour. The secretive totalitarian economy has increasingly isolated itself from the world. Its activities violated international agreements, thus inviting sanctions against it. However, while the DPRK has been repeatedly sanctioned by the United Nations (UN), the US, Japan, Canada, Australia and the European Union, the regime has shown little inclination to comply with international agreements. The UN sanctions against North Korea were geared towards preventing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and delivery systems, as well as transactions involving technology, material or financial resources connected to its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile programmes. After North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006, an embargo was imposed on military and technological materials, as well as luxury goods. In addition, the freezing of financial assets abroad was demanded. But have the sanctions worked?



The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a long standing historical and political conflict where two parties – the Jewish and Palestinian – strive to establish their states on contested territories to which both sides aspire. The modern day conflict which has roots dating from the 1947 Israel-Arab war, was won by Israel. Isreal subsequently drew its state borders, which were never accepted by its Palestinian citizens. The struggle for control of territory between two nations continued but with there being two Palestinian territories - Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas and West Bank under control of Fatah government - as centres of the conflict. The Gaza Strip is located in the southwestern part of Israel state and has an area of 360 km2 with an estimated population of 1.8 million people. Hamas is a Sunni Islamic organization with Khaled Mashal as its leader, who controls Gaza Strip, with Palestinian Nationalism, Sunni Islamism and anti-Zionism ideologies. After 38 years of Israel armies presence on the Gaza strip, they withdrew in 2005. However fighting in Gaza, between Israeli and Hamas fighters, known as the Gaza conflict, continued through 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 with military campaigns by the Israel army – IDF - on the territory of Gaza. The military campaign of July 2014 known as “Operation Protective Edge” led to a yet another UN commission of inquiry. On 23 July 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted Resolution S/21-1 in which it decided to establish an independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014. In its report of 24 June 2015 the commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups. In some cases, the commission states, these violations may amount to war crimes. Finally, it urges that immediate steps be taken to ensure accountability, including the right to an effective remedy for victims. However, the CoI did not lead to any follow up and Gaza remains occupied and isolated.


Former Yuogoslavia

International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia - ICTY

Many authors have noted that, while war crimes are committed around the world every day, national and international laws designed to punish these acts are invoked only under favourable political circumstances. In international law this has resulted in some wellknown initiatives aimed at addressing the individual criminal responsibility of high-level political and military officials. In 1945, ad hoc military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo were established to try high-level German and Japanese perpetrators. But it was not until nearly the end of the 20th century that international political circumstances allowed for the establishment of another such tribunal, to address individual criminal responsibility for crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The UN Security Council (UNSC) laid the groundwork for creation of the ICTY in two Resolutions. UNSC Resolution 808 of February 1993 announced the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. The initial mandate of the ICTY was to put an end to such crimes and to take effective measures to bring the persons responsible for them to justice. UN Resolution 827 of May 1993 confirmed this mandate and asserted that the Tribunal would “contribute to ensuring that such violations of international humanitarian law are halted and effectively redressed,” and further, that one of the objectives of the ICTY was “to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace.” It was also at this time that the ICTY Statute was adopted, making the foundation of the Tribunal concrete. Once brought to life, the ICTY was afforded considerable power, as it was established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter –“Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression” – compelling all UN states to cooperate. Other ad hoc and hybrid tribunals, for Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and Lebanon soon followed. Finally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) – the first permanent court with jurisdiction to address crimes committed in armed conflicts – was established in 2002. The ICTY was established in the middle of the violent conflict in BiH. In February 1993, parties to the conflict were presented with a plan known as the Vance-Owen Peace Plan (VOPP) which, if accepted, would have left BiH as a single state divided into ten ethnically-defined cantons. Negotiations definitively failed on 5 May 1993 when Bosnian Serb leaders rejected the plan. Less than three weeks later, the UNSC announced the establishment of the ICTY at a public hearing, on 25 May 1993. The ICTY’s creation was labelled by some as a ‘fig leaf’, alluding to the inability of the International Community to stop the commission of crimes in BiH through a peace settlement or military intervention.1 Indeed, the creation of the Tribunal did not bring peace nor did it deter the warring sides from committing further crimes. The gravest crimes of the war in BiH were committed by Serb forces in the summer of 1995, in the areas of Srebrenica and Žepa, two years after the Tribunal was established; and the Kosovo conflict followed five years after the ICTY was created. The question arises whether the creation of the ICTY – or any international criminal court for that matter – can compensate for political, diplomatic, and military failures to end an ongoing military conflict, to secure a long-lasting political solution, or to contribute to reconciliation after the end of a conflict. Should one expect that legal remedies can resolve political, military, and diplomatic problems during an ongoing armed conflict or in the post conflict period?



Janneke Kruyt

July this year I was lucky enough to be appointed by my employer, the Dutch Ministry of Defense, to take part in the 3rd Master Class held in Dubrovnik. Working as a military legal advisor for the Dutch army, I hold an LLM in public international law and have a professional interest in the subject of the Master Class. And interesting it turned out to be absolutely!

The accommodation for the course was well organized. Most of the students were accommodated in a beautiful cloister within walking distance of the Inter University Centre. The fact that the students came from all over the world, even including North-Korea, made for an incredible interesting atmosphere. During classes and in leisure time, different political and legal views based on peoples origin were exchanged. The variety of eminent speakers; human rights activists, a British army general and an American diplomat, judges, etc., made that the students were offered a broad view of certain political and legal issues. Additionally, I specifically enjoyed the lunch discussions where we were offered a chance to have more in depth discussions with the lecturers over a good meal.

A few minor things that, in my opinion, could be improved for the upcoming masterclasses are the following. Firstly, the guidelines for the end project, a written paper and presentation, were not entirely clear to everyone. This resulted in the fact that some groups put too much effort in their project over the second week, which led to them having less attention for the speakers and topics covered in that week. Secondly, some group members were not aware of the fact (or not willing) that during this masterclass they had to work outside class hours as well. This resulted in a bit of frustration within the group. For next time it might be helpful to point out to people, before they sign up for the masterclass, that they are expected to put in a fair amount of work throughout long days. Lastly, the class consisted largely out of people that just came out of university. In my opinion it would be better if there was an equal divide between students and people with some years of work experience. In that way even more different perspectives to certain topics are offered.

Overall I had a great couple of weeks, learned a lot and met people that I will definitely still be in contact with for a longer period of time. Hopefully next year another legal advisor of our army will have the chance to attend and have two equally amazing weeks in Dubrovnik.

Daniel J.H. Wand

The Sir Geoffrey Nice Foundation Masterclass on Law, History, Politics, and Society in the Context of Mass Atrocities, which took place in the beautiful city of Dubrovnik between 4th and 15th July 2016, was a ‘one of a kind’ experience. The Masterclass, attended by over 25 very able individuals from numerous different countries, working in a wide variety of professions and from diverse backgrounds, provided a uniquely stimulating environment in which to learn.
It was one rich in knowledge, enthusiasm and personal experience from which I certainly benefitted personally and I know many others did too. It also provided an excellent opportunity to meet and speak with people whom I would not have had the opportunity to do so otherwise, and to make personal and professional contacts for the future.
The programme that had been prepared, no doubt tirelessly, for the Masterclass was as diverse as it was interesting. I very much enjoyed hearing about issues and topics which I had never read or thought much about before such as the Iranian revolution or the history of the Former Yugoslavia. We had the opportunity to hear from a large number of speakers, many of whom were experts in their field and all of whom brought with them different information, perspectives and experiences which created a rich pool of knowledge on which we could draw.
All of the speakers were excellent, and spoke with passion and enthusiasm about their subjects. They genuinely wanted to engage with the participants and were keen to answer questions and to start discussion – a very unique and pleasant feature of the Masterclass. It isn’t very often that one has the opportunity to engage with such esteemed individuals on a very personal level but the Masterclass provided just such an opportunity.
The multidisciplinary nature of the Masterclass and the different perspectives brought by the various speakers taught us to engage critically with the various issues presented and to ask questions of our own understanding. It certainly achieved its purpose, as Sir Geoffrey liked to keep saying, of knocking out our ‘received knowledge’.
The course is however demanding and completing it requires stamina. The days are long, information comes thick and fast, and you are continually asked to think and offer opinions. The saying goes that you only get out as much as you put in, and this is certainly true of the Masterclass. I suggest coming prepared, ready to work and keen to exploit all of the resources put before you, as it is a one-time opportunity not to be wasted.
I would certainly have no hesitation to fully endorse the Masterclass and to thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject matter of the course and who is willing to learn and contribute to the learning of others.

Ehlimana Memišević

The Geoffrey Nice Foundation's Third Master Class on “Conflicts Beyond the Reach of the Law: Emerging World Order and the Search for Adequate Responses to Political Violence“ was held from 4th July to 15th July 2016 at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The main aim of this Master Class was to provide an interdisciplinary understanding to the cause of political violence and mass atrocities in armed conflicts.

Regions of Iran, Israel–Palestine, North Korea and former Yugoslavia were used as case studies. In the following parts of this report I will focus on lessons and benefit gained from the participation in the Master Class.

Namely, I found this Master Class to be very useful for several reasons. Firstly, due to the knowledge presented about conflicts and mass atrocities in different regions along with their legal, historical, social and political backgrounds, transitional justice mechanisms, as well as impact and limitations of international criminal law.

Secondly, the interdisciplinary approach to understanding the cause of political violence and mass atrocities is what I find highly significant. Lectures given by distinguished experts – academics, lawyers and judges from international courts, eminent military and political representatives and NGO officials – about political violence and mass atrocities in the four different regions broadened our minds by providing a wider perspective and comparative approach to these issues. Since I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina where numerous mass atrocities have been committed, where the processes of transitional justice and reconciliation are still going on and where issues of mass atrocities and political violence are not studied sufficiently or properly, interdisciplinary and comparative approach to these issues is probably the most important contribution of this Master Class to me. Besides that, content and approach of the Master Class will be used as a proposal model for supplementing content of the existing courses and introducing new elective courses at the Law Faculty in Sarajevo.

Finally, besides the content of the course, teaching methods are not of less importance. In this regard, I highlight the group work and the presentations at the end of the course, discussions with lecturers and other participants during the classes, as well as the practice of examination-in-chief and cross-examination throughout the course. Through participation in these activities during the Master Class, participants gained more knowledge about particular region and learned how international criminal justice system deals with conflicts in legal process.

Rabah Kherbane

The Geoffrey Nice Foundation's Master Class on Conflicts Beyond the Reach of the Law: Emerging World Order and the Search for Adequate Responses to Political Violence ran from 4 July to 15 July 2016 at the Inter-University Centre in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The purpose of this Master Class was to provide an interdisciplinary understanding to the causes of mass atrocities, and consider how contemporary conflicts can be resolved. The regions of the former Yugoslavia,
Iran, North Korea, and Israel-Palestine were used as case studies to explore transitional justice mechanisms, including the impact of international criminal law. This pre?cis will present an overview of the Master Class, then conclude with a lesson and benefit gained from the experience.

The course had three main aspects which ran through the two weeks. First, seminars led by distinguished experts were held on a daily basis. Students learnt about various regions, conflicts and mass atrocities in detail, along with their legal, historical, social, and political backgrounds. For example, Professor Avi Shlaim of the University of Oxford gave a lecture on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. This was followed by Sir Nick Parker, a former General in the British Army giving a military perspective on the 2014 Gaza war. These seminars encouraged students to engage with different disciplines whilst keeping a particular conflict under analysis.

Secondly, group projects were assigned on each case study. Students were split into eight groups of four, spanning fifteen different nationalities and various professional and academic backgrounds. This allowed an interdisciplinary engagement in the consideration of each case study and how the issues in that region could be resolved. At the end of the course, each group presented their research to the class and submitted a report of their recommendations.

Lastly, a mock case paper for a trial in the International Criminal Court was used as a tool to teach advocacy. Students studied this paper and practiced examination-in-chief and cross- examination throughout the course. As most of those attending were not barristers, this provided a practical and at times critical insight into how the international criminal justice system receives evidence and deals with conflicts in a legal process.

The main lesson I learnt is that as important as the law is, broadening the mind and approaching complex issues through an interdisciplinary lens is not to be understated. This was clearly demonstrated by the incredible breadth of knowledge and skills brought to the table by the sheer diversity of the course – academic, professional, and personal. It is fair to say that everyone present made an important contribution. In particular, I was constantly fascinated by my student peers whom were as individually different as they were impressive. This variety of perspectives allowed each of the important contemporary issues discussed during the Master Class to be analysed with intellectual rigour.

A major benefit of the Master Class was the accessibility of faculty members. It is rare to have such casual access to leading international academics; lawyers and judges from international courts; high-profile NGO officials; and eminent military and political representatives. To have met even one of these experts in the setting provided by this course would have been a great privilege. And yet, in Dubrovnik, there were twenty.

Sophia Olga Kerridge

First and foremost I wish to thank you for accepting me onto the course: I thoroughly enjoyed the course and have taken much away from it.

I was drawn to the Masterclass because I hoped that it would allowed me to bring together my international relations background and my more recent legal qualifications. It did not disappoint. The lectures covered the events that took place in Iran, North Korea, Gaza and the Former Yugoslavia, as well as different theoretical and practical ways of interpreting these mass atrocities.

I do not exaggerate when I say that my assumptions were challenged every day, and as a result I came to understand these conflicts differently and started to critically consider the role that justice plays in conflict resolution.

Sir Geoffrey Nice and Nevenka Tromp were always challenging each other from the beginning, in turn creating an environment where the students were comfortable challenging the speakers, each other and ourselves. Their passion for the course was contagious, and whilst they are inspiring individuals, they were also approachable and relaxed.

The number and range of guest speakers was very well chosen since each offered a different perspective from anyone else, and each was distinguished in their field. We started with Mr Sergei Karaganov who offered a Russian perspective on international relations and conflict. While as a group we were fairly timid at this stage, it was an excellent way to blow the lid off all our assumptions, particularly that political leaders aim to make the world a safer place. Mr Karaganov’s rationality was unquestionable, but his view of the world was a million miles from my own.

From there we immersed ourselves in the four case studies. Each case was presented by at least two experts on the conflict, ranging from businessmen, NGO activists, academics, lawyers and judges, to diplomats and military officers.

The Iranian case was most interesting because it started with the assumption we knew nothing about it. We were guided briefly through the context to the complicated dynamics surrounding the massacre of prisoners, ending with a session on how to go forward. It was insightful, at some points emotional, and really brought the marriage between theory and reality to the forefront of the course.

There were two surprises during the course related to the topic of Nuremberg: attending the Croatian Premier of “Nuremberg: its Lessons for Today,” which included original footage of the Nuremberg trials; and a video lecture given by Benjamin Ferencz, former prosecutor at the trials themselves. I think that many of the lawyers among us assumed that these trials were only to be considered from a historical perspective and was very removed from how justice is used today in a post-conflict situation. Mr Ferencz astutely and persuasively argued that while there have been various different attempts at using justice to bring closure to conflict or periods of mass atrocities, we are still no closer to a world without war at all. This was certainly an objective post WWII, but seems to have disappeared since. He saw the law as key to preventing violence in the first place, and challenged us to do our part to bringing about a world of “law not war.”

Most attention during the course was given to the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic. Unfortunately we did not start with an overview of the conflict, and the reading for the Masterclass did not cover it either. While we were still able to appreciate the speakers on the topic, and learnt a lot from the debate between the speakers (who were outstanding), at some stages I could see that the debate was lost on a number of us.

A weakness that was raised during the course by Mark Osiel and which I support is the lack of a Latin American case study. Having worked in Latin America as a Human Rights observer, the examples of Guatemala, Colombia, Argentina to name but three, each show innovative efforts at dealing with mass atrocities. Given the lack of Latin American awareness in Europe generally, it would be possible to deal with it in the same way as we dealt with the Iranian case.

The Masterclass was not limited to lectures: there were film showings; video presentations; lunches; advocacy classes; and group work. Each group of four participants worked on a case study to produce recommendations for their relevant mass atrocity. This was good for directing our focus, but it would have been useful to have a more detailed and narrow brief. I particularly appreciated the lunches since, while intimidating at first, they presented a wonderful opportunity to speak honestly and informally with many of the speakers about the lectures, our case study or their personal experience. They were always enlightening occasions.

The participants were wonderfully varied, both in terms of background and nationality. In my small group alone I was working with a North Korean dissident, a Bosnian student living in Croatia, and a Serbian lawyer. I was particularly glad for the students from the various Former Yugoslav Republics since their attitude and understanding of a conflict that had affected most of them so intimately, and in such different ways, was very insightful.

Dubrovnik was an excellent choice of location for the course. It was easily accessible, and it felt appropriate to cover such topics in a city that was thriving, but still had visible scars from its recent conflict. Of course, it was also beautiful, safe and warm, which made the little time off very treasured. The university that the Masterclass took place was excellent, and the accommodation was of a very high standard.

In sum, I would recommend this Masterclass to anyone who finds such topics interesting. I cannot overstate how much I enjoyed the two weeks, and while it was intense, was very stimulating. I feel that I have learnt new skills, made new friends, and have left motivated to pursue a career in la with options I didn’t know that I had before. For that I thank you!


Faculty members

  • Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Lord Iain Bonomy, Glasgow, Scotland , UK
  • Kate Clark, University of Amsterdam, NL
  • Rodney Dixon, QC, London, UK
  • Professor Robert Donia, Michigan University, US
  • Donald Ferencz, Planethood Foundation, USA/UK
  • Benjamin Ferencz, video lecture, Planthood Foundation, USA
  • Professor Sergei Karaganov, Moscow, Russian Federation
  • Judge Joanna Korner QC, London, UK
  • Professor Gjylieta Mushkolai, Prishtina, Kosovo
  • Sir Geoffrey Nice, Inner Temple Inn / Gresham Professor of Law / University of Buckingham, UK
  • Professor Mark Osiel, Iowa University, US
  • General Sir Nick Parker, UK
  • Ambassador Stephen Rapp, Former US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, Global Justice Institute, The Hague, NL
  • Benedict Rogers, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, London, UK
  • Hamid Sabi, London, UK
  • Shadi Sadr, Iran, UK
  • Sandra Shulberg, Film maker, New York, UK
  • Professor Avi Shlaim, Oxford, UK
  • Dr Nevenka Tromp, University of Amsterdam, NL
  • Jennie Collis, Inner Temple

List of students

  • Umar ALI, UK
  • Christopher BLESSLEY, UK
  • Martina BOSAK, CROATIA
  • Gavin DINGLEY, UK
  • Rebecca KEATING, UK
  • Sophia KERRIDGE, UK
  • Rabah KHERBANE, UK
  • Marie-Ursula KIND, SWITSERLAND
  • Selda KRASNIQI, UK
  • Maxwell MYERS, UK
  • Sehyek OH, SOUTH KOREA
  • Uğurcan Öztürk
  • Daniel WAND, UK
  • Jasmina ĐAPO