Tribunals of Conscience and Crimes Against Humanity
Over the past century and more, various private Tribunals of Conscience have focused the moral judgment of humanity in situations where official bodies have either failed to hold violators of human rights to account or have been themselves the perpetrators of horrific acts that shock the conscience.
These nongovernmental, private expressive associations must be distinguished from international legal tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, which are examples of multinational courts established by governments under international law to try cases of making war and of war crimes.
International Criminal Tribunals
Discussing the impact of International Criminal Tribunals, a recent paper from the Netherlands noted,
“The idea that a ruler’s power cannot be absolute, that there must be standards beyond the ruler to protect his citizens, has become the foundation stone of international human rights law. But the idea of international criminal law, and international criminal tribunals, goes a step further. In the extreme case where the ruler commits or condones crimes against his people, it takes not only the formulation of norms, but also the administration of punitive justice out of his hands and up to the international level, even to the point where he himself can be tried on criminal charges. . . .
Yet the symbolic power of international criminal tribunals may be far greater than their legal authority and capacity would suggest. In the cases of Georgia and Kenya, the threat of an ICC investigation appears to be spurring national investigations. Above all, in the former Yugoslavia and in the situations the ICC is currently investigating, the existence of the investigations has given local civil society actors room to discuss “difficult subjects” related to the recent past, such as the occurrence of massacres, the use of mass rape as a political instrument, the use of child-soldiers, and the issue of accountability in whatever shape.” [1]
Crimes Against Humanity
International Law is ambiguous with regard to Crimes Against Humanity (CAHs).
“Unlike genocide and war crimes, which have been widely recognized and prohibited in international criminal law since the establishment of the Nuremberg principles, there has never been a comprehensive convention on crimes against humanity, even though such crimes are continuously perpetrated worldwide in numerous conflicts and crises. There are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements.” [2]
While the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” (Class C Charges) was used in the post-World War II imposition of “victors justice” against CAH perpetrators on the losing side, “the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecution—only those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In the event, no [independent] Class C charges were heard in Tokyo…” [3]
The failure of governments to respond to public concerns regarding CAH necessitates and justifies private persons constituting themselves into private associations for the purpose of condemning violations of basic humane standards.
Before the earliest Tribunals of Conscience there were several important international campaigns which contained elements later developed by the Tribunals. These include campaigns against slavery which started even before the beginning of the 19th Century. Often led by concerns of conscience, by religious libertarians such as the Quakers, the anti-slavery movement included a major element of the Tribunals: the public condemnation of acts seen as immoral. [4]
Similarly, private commissions of investigation were established to oppose the horrific abuses in the Congo during the early 19th Century when that territory was a personal fiefdom of the King of the Belgians. Slavery enforced by brutalities, including dismemberment, was widely condemned and various private campaigns, often led by clergy, investigated and condemned the violations of humanitarian standards. It was one of those campaigns where the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” was first used. [5] Later the phrase was used in reference to the genocide against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. [6]
Tribunals of Conscience
Various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to define “Tribunals of Conscience”.
The National Lawyers Guild, for example, has posited the following:
“A Tribunal of Conscience is a People’s Tribunal. Such tribunals date back more than six decades to the era of the Russell Tribunal on US war crimes in Viet Nam and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of People (Algiers, 1976). They provide an alternative forum for those who find no recourse in the formal institutions of the state or the international community. They are the place where the people judge the crimes of the state, not where the state judges the people.” [7]
Perhaps the earliest self-denoted Tribunal of Conscience was that convoked by B. Russell and J-P. Sartre regarding the War in Vietnam, in 1966. After two public sessions in Europe the Tribunal published a strong condemnation of United States’ actions in Vietnam in 1967.
Russel quoted Robert H. Jackson, the Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, in justification of the establishment of the Tribunal:
“If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson [8]
The Russel/Sartre Tribunal encouraged subsequent private efforts:
“Additional tribunals have been conducted in the following decades on the same model, using the denomination Russell Tribunal. E.g., The Russell Tribunal on Latin America focused on human rights violations in the military dictatorships of Argentina and Brazil (Rome, 1973), on Chile’s military coup d’état (Rome, 1974–76), on the situation of Human Rights in Germany (1978), on the Threat of Indigenous Peoples of America (1982), on Human Rights in Psychiatry (Berlin, 2001), on Iraq (Brussels, 2004), and on Palestine (Barcelona, 2009–12).” [9]
These efforts have also continued beyond the Russel/Sartre model. The “Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was established at the behest of a member of the Senate of Italy in Bologna in the late 1970s. It has held 46 sessions regarding separate Crimes Against Humanity over the ensuing decades. [10] These sessions have reviewed situations involving CAHs primarily against peoples who are not recognized as “nations”, such as the population of Western Sahara or the Kurds, who live in several Middle Eastern nations.
Recent Developments
Other Tribunals of Conscience have included the 2009 Agent Orange Tribunal of the International Democratic Lawyers Association [11]; the 2020 Belmarish Tribunal regarding the persecution of Julian Assange [12]; and the 2019 China Tribunal which states:
“The China Tribunal is an independent people’s tribunal established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from, amongst others, prisoners of conscience in China and to investigate what criminal offences, if any, have been committed by state or state-approved bodies, organisations or individuals in China that may have engaged in forced organ harvesting. “ [13]
During the 2020-2021 period of the “Declared Pandemic” the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice was established to hold the perpetrators of what the Tribunal found to be the “Genocidal Technologies Pandemic” accountable. It entered a formal judgment against various state-actors, politicians, businesses and NGOs for their various roles in triggering the false-flag “pandemic” and rushing “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, including novel class of “gene altering” injections into production and deployment. [14]
Humanity Benefits from Tribunals of Conscience
“What”, the skeptic may ask, “is the value of private Tribunals of Conscience to humanity?”
We live in a world where the promise of global peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocidal agenda (most recently, through the Declared COVID Pandemic), where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs — a true Hobbesian international order. The new religion of this world is Statism, the worship of the institutions of the States, including their judicial institutions and administrative indiscretions.
As the lack of intellectual viability of Statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed and become, perhaps, increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, an alternative to state-sponsored “justice” is needed.
The juridical subjects of International Law, “International Actors,” include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN along with its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and “specialized agencies” — WHO and FAO, for example). Not included in this list are actual private persons, natural or cultural Nations, even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.
The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.
We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant Statist view of international law.
In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our private associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to humane individuals.
Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of Statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century’s killing fields and nuclear incinerations.
Consider the historic role of Statism in the imposition of what libertarian philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal “incapacities of women” and the King’s trade monopolies – all Statist institutions which have repeatedly perpetrated Crimes Against Humanity.
How can humanity trust the very Statist institutions which have so violated humane standards, by committing Crimes Against Humanity to exact meaningful justice for their own misdeeds, no matter how egregious?
Even as the vicious old concepts, chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, the very concept a “sovereign” State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must also be rejected. States and their political elites must be subject to true Justice or there is no Justice.
Clearly, that justice will not come from the very source of the criminality. Private persons of conscience must take the lead to expose and publicly condemn Crimes Against Humanity. This is the role, which is of inestimable value to humanity, of Private Tribunals of Conscience.
Enforcing Judgments of Tribunals of Conscience relies of free people of conscience: www.MarshallsofConscience.com
Tribunals of Conscience and Crimes Against Humanity
Over the past century and more, various private Tribunals of Conscience have focused the moral judgment of humanity in situations where official bodies have either failed to hold violators of human rights to account or have been themselves the perpetrators of horrific acts that shock the conscience.
These nongovernmental, private expressive associations must be distinguished from international legal tribunals, such as the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Court of Justice, which are examples of multinational courts established by governments under international law to try cases of making war and of war crimes.
International Criminal Tribunals
Discussing the impact of International Criminal Tribunals, a recent paper from the Netherlands noted,
“The idea that a ruler’s power cannot be absolute, that there must be standards beyond the ruler to protect his citizens, has become the foundation stone of international human rights law. But the idea of international criminal law, and international criminal tribunals, goes a step further. In the extreme case where the ruler commits or condones crimes against his people, it takes not only the formulation of norms, but also the administration of punitive justice out of his hands and up to the international level, even to the point where he himself can be tried on criminal charges. . . .
Yet the symbolic power of international criminal tribunals may be far greater than their legal authority and capacity would suggest. In the cases of Georgia and Kenya, the threat of an ICC investigation appears to be spurring national investigations. Above all, in the former Yugoslavia and in the situations the ICC is currently investigating, the existence of the investigations has given local civil society actors room to discuss “difficult subjects” related to the recent past, such as the occurrence of massacres, the use of mass rape as a political instrument, the use of child-soldiers, and the issue of accountability in whatever shape.” [1]
Crimes Against Humanity
International Law is ambiguous with regard to Crimes Against Humanity (CAHs).
“Unlike genocide and war crimes, which have been widely recognized and prohibited in international criminal law since the establishment of the Nuremberg principles, there has never been a comprehensive convention on crimes against humanity, even though such crimes are continuously perpetrated worldwide in numerous conflicts and crises. There are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements.” [2]
While the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” (Class C Charges) was used in the post-World War II imposition of “victors justice” against CAH perpetrators on the losing side, “the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecution—only those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In the event, no [independent] Class C charges were heard in Tokyo…” [3]
The failure of governments to respond to public concerns regarding CAH necessitates and justifies private persons constituting themselves into private associations for the purpose of condemning violations of basic humane standards.
Before the earliest Tribunals of Conscience there were several important international campaigns which contained elements later developed by the Tribunals. These include campaigns against slavery which started even before the beginning of the 19th Century. Often led by concerns of conscience, by religious libertarians such as the Quakers, the anti-slavery movement included a major element of the Tribunals: the public condemnation of acts seen as immoral. [4]
Similarly, private commissions of investigation were established to oppose the horrific abuses in the Congo during the early 19th Century when that territory was a personal fiefdom of the King of the Belgians. Slavery enforced by brutalities, including dismemberment, was widely condemned and various private campaigns, often led by clergy, investigated and condemned the violations of humanitarian standards. It was one of those campaigns where the phrase “Crimes Against Humanity” was first used. [5] Later the phrase was used in reference to the genocide against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. [6]
Tribunals of Conscience
Various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to define “Tribunals of Conscience”.
The National Lawyers Guild, for example, has posited the following:
“A Tribunal of Conscience is a People’s Tribunal. Such tribunals date back more than six decades to the era of the Russell Tribunal on US war crimes in Viet Nam and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of People (Algiers, 1976). They provide an alternative forum for those who find no recourse in the formal institutions of the state or the international community. They are the place where the people judge the crimes of the state, not where the state judges the people.” [7]
Perhaps the earliest self-denoted Tribunal of Conscience was that convoked by B. Russell and J-P. Sartre regarding the War in Vietnam, in 1966. After two public sessions in Europe the Tribunal published a strong condemnation of United States’ actions in Vietnam in 1967.
Russel quoted Robert H. Jackson, the Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, in justification of the establishment of the Tribunal:
“If certain acts and violations of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them. We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson [8]
The Russel/Sartre Tribunal encouraged subsequent private efforts:
“Additional tribunals have been conducted in the following decades on the same model, using the denomination Russell Tribunal. E.g., The Russell Tribunal on Latin America focused on human rights violations in the military dictatorships of Argentina and Brazil (Rome, 1973), on Chile’s military coup d’état (Rome, 1974–76), on the situation of Human Rights in Germany (1978), on the Threat of Indigenous Peoples of America (1982), on Human Rights in Psychiatry (Berlin, 2001), on Iraq (Brussels, 2004), and on Palestine (Barcelona, 2009–12).” [9]
These efforts have also continued beyond the Russel/Sartre model. The “Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was established at the behest of a member of the Senate of Italy in Bologna in the late 1970s. It has held 46 sessions regarding separate Crimes Against Humanity over the ensuing decades. [10] These sessions have reviewed situations involving CAHs primarily against peoples who are not recognized as “nations”, such as the population of Western Sahara or the Kurds, who live in several Middle Eastern nations.
Recent Developments
Other Tribunals of Conscience have included the 2009 Agent Orange Tribunal of the International Democratic Lawyers Association [11]; the 2020 Belmarish Tribunal regarding the persecution of Julian Assange [12]; and the 2019 China Tribunal which states:
“The China Tribunal is an independent people’s tribunal established to inquire into forced organ harvesting from, amongst others, prisoners of conscience in China and to investigate what criminal offences, if any, have been committed by state or state-approved bodies, organisations or individuals in China that may have engaged in forced organ harvesting. “ [13]
During the 2020-2021 period of the “Declared Pandemic” the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice was established to hold the perpetrators of what the Tribunal found to be the “Genocidal Technologies Pandemic” accountable. It entered a formal judgment against various state-actors, politicians, businesses and NGOs for their various roles in triggering the false-flag “pandemic” and rushing “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines, including novel class of “gene altering” injections into production and deployment. [14]
Humanity Benefits from Tribunals of Conscience
“What”, the skeptic may ask, “is the value of private Tribunals of Conscience to humanity?”
We live in a world where the promise of global peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocidal agenda (most recently, through the Declared COVID Pandemic), where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs — a true Hobbesian international order. The new religion of this world is Statism, the worship of the institutions of the States, including their judicial institutions and administrative indiscretions.
As the lack of intellectual viability of Statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed and become, perhaps, increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, an alternative to state-sponsored “justice” is needed.
The juridical subjects of International Law, “International Actors,” include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN along with its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and “specialized agencies” — WHO and FAO, for example). Not included in this list are actual private persons, natural or cultural Nations, even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.
The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.
We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant Statist view of international law.
In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our private associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to humane individuals.
Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of Statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century’s killing fields and nuclear incinerations.
Consider the historic role of Statism in the imposition of what libertarian philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal “incapacities of women” and the King’s trade monopolies – all Statist institutions which have repeatedly perpetrated Crimes Against Humanity.
How can humanity trust the very Statist institutions which have so violated humane standards, by committing Crimes Against Humanity to exact meaningful justice for their own misdeeds, no matter how egregious?
Even as the vicious old concepts, chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, the very concept a “sovereign” State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must also be rejected. States and their political elites must be subject to true Justice or there is no Justice.
Clearly, that justice will not come from the very source of the criminality. Private persons of conscience must take the lead to expose and publicly condemn Crimes Against Humanity. This is the role, which is of inestimable value to humanity, of Private Tribunals of Conscience.
Enforcing Judgments of Tribunals of Conscience relies of free people of conscience: www.MarshallsofConscience.com
—————-
[1] https://www.academia.edu/4171788/International_Criminal_Tribunals
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East#Charges
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity#Abolition_of_the_slave_trade
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity#First_use
[6] https://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.160/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html
[7] www.inquirycommission.org / https://www.nlginternational.org/report/Final_Preliminary_ITC_Verdict.pdf
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal#Subsequent_Tribunals
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Peoples%27_Tribunal#List_of_sessions
[11] https://vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/paris_2009_tribunal_decision_2.15.10.pdf
[12] https://popularresistance.org/the-belmarsh-tribunal/
[13] https://chinatribunal.com/
[14] http://www.peaceinspace.org
Also posted at:
International Journal of Natural Health, Science and Policy
http://www.inhere.org/international-journal-of-nhsp/
Legal Standing of the Natural and Common Law Tribunal for Public Health and Justice at
By Presiding Tribunal Judge Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, CERT Public Health
Our Tribunal is generally known in the Common Law as a “Tribunal of Conscience”. In the words of one such Tribunal of Conscience, “A Tribunal of Conscience is a People’s Tribunal. Such tribunals date back more than six decades to the era of the Russell Tribunal on US war crimes in Viet Nam and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of People (Algiers, 1976). They provide an alternative forum for those who find no recourse in the formal institutions of the state or the international community. They are the place where the people judge the crimes of the state, not where the state judges the people.A Tribunal of Conscience is an opportunity to gather and review evidence of wrongs committed against the people, and to bring them before the public in a manner that exposes the cruel policies and the tragic cost of state actions that negatively affect the people, their communities and the environment. Such Tribunals offer a public forum for those whose voices have been silenced, and raise consciousness within society of the need for historic and contemporary justice in contexts of impunity. The Tribunal calls upon the public to hold governments accountable for crimes of the state and ensure that the violations it has found are not repeated. Finally, a Tribunal of Conscience can point the way to initiatives, reforms and basic changes whereby social justice, not injustice, becomes the norm in everyday life.
“Our Tribunal arose out of this history and extends the three-year process in Mexico of the Permanent People’s Tribunal, whose findings were presented in November of 2014. The jury for the present International Tribunal of Conscience is made up of 14 international experts in the fields of law, political science, social welfare policy and the protection of human rights”
Source:https://www.nlginternational.org/report/Final_Preliminary_ITC_Verdict.pdf
Another Tribunal of Conscience that may be familiar as one of our Tribunal Judges, Sacha Stone, is a Founder, is the International Tribunal for Natural Justice, at www.ITNJ.org. The ITNJ Vision and Mission is:
“Vision A world in which the Earth is honoured; Truth is spoken; Love is the basis of all action; and Justice is an organic, self-fulfilling function of respect for natural law.
Mission To apprehend the abuses and tyranny of systems and institutions; restore truth and reason to the delivery of justice in the world; and uphold natural justice as the foundational tenet of human expression beyond the artifice of borders and boundaries.
Open Court In homage to its overriding commitment to Truth and transparency, the ITNJ is committed to video-recording all proceedings and live-streaming hearings and trials whenever possible, with all video recordings archived for public access. Never again shall the corrupting influence of secrecy be permitted to colour the hearts of those whom we entrust as guardians of our ancient treasures; our birth-right of natural justice.” https://www.itnj.org/itnj/itnj-mission/
Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal – The issue of the enforceability of the Judgments of a Tribunal of Conscience were dealt with in a War Crimes Tribunal of Conscience on which I have served as a Judge, where the UK and USA an its Heads of Government PM Tony Blair, Pres. George W. Bush, VP Richard B. Cheney, SecDef Donald H. Rumsfeld [who was found guity of Genodide by our Tribunal] were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for the unlawful wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo, Cuba in 2011 and 2012.
Universal Jurisdiction: International Criminal Code
“Universal jurisdiction may be asserted by a particular nation as well as by an international tribunal. The result is the same: individuals become answerable for crimes defined and prosecuted regardless of where they live, or where the conduct occurred; crimes said to be so grievous as to be universally condemned…. since the end of the Second World War over fifteen states have conducted investigations, commenced prosecutions and completed trials based on universal jurisdiction for the crimes or arrested people with a view to extraditing the persons to a state seeking to prosecute them. These states include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, Senegal, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.”
“The Center for Constitutional Rights tried first in Switzerland and then in Canada to prosecute former US President George W. Bush on behalf of persons tortured in US detention camps, invoking the universal jurisdiction doctrine. Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland after news of the planned prosecution came to light. Bush has traveled to Canada but the Canadian government shut down the prosecution in advance of his arrest.[21] The Center has filed a grievance with the United Nations for Canada’s failure to invoke universal jurisdiction to enforce the Convention Against Torture, a petition on which action is pending.”
“To implement the Rome Statute, Canada passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia law professor, has argued that these laws go further than the Rome Statute, providing Canadian courts with jurisdiction over acts pre-dating the ICC and occurring in territories outside of ICC member-states;” as a result, anyone who is present in Canada and alleged to have committed genocide, torture … anywhere, at any time, can be prosecuted [in Canada].
118 Nations Ratifying the International Criminal Court Statute
This is a list of the 118 Nations ratifying the International Criminal Court Statute whose National Courts may have Universal Jurisdiction over war crimes,
NOTE: Key members of the criminal co-conspiracy of named and unnamed Defendants herein reside in the People’s Republic of China, the United States of America, the State of Israel, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Russian Federation, nations that are not signatories or ratifiers of the International Criminal Court-Rome Statute. Therefore such Defendants fall under the Universal Jurisdiction of National Courts of the 118 nations that have signed and ratified the International Criminal Court-Rome Statute, and fall under the Universal Jurisdiction of this Court. As the UK has ratified the International Criminal Code, Defendants residing in the United Kingdom fall under the jurisdiction of UK Courts as well as the National Courts of the other 117 ratifying Nations.
For example, individuals in the United States of America such as Bill Gates and Anthony Stephen Fauci, MD, who along with other named and unnamed Defendants in a criminal conspiracy, has committed and continues to commit 5G/AI Coronavirus-related international crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity as documented publicly by the President of Ghana, may be sued for genocide and crimes against humanity in the courts of Ghana under Universal Jurisdiction using the International Criminal Code.
Common Law Court Great Britain & International, and Other Common Law Courts worldwide
This Sample Request for a Writ of Emergency Injunction may be adapted and filed for action with the Common Law Court Great Britain & International, and Other Common Law Courts worldwide
…..
Definitions of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
(1) Genocide – As defined in Article 6 of the International Criminal Code, For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(2) Crimes Against Humanity – As defined in Article 7 of the International Criminal Code, For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
- For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) “Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) “Forced pregnancy” means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) “Enforced disappearance of persons” means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
- For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term “gender” refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term “gender” does not indicate any meaning different from the above.
BONDICIDE, BARNEVERNET & FAMILY SOVEREIGNTY AND UNIVERSAL PARENTAL RIGHTS ACT
PREAMBLE
A. FAMILY SOVEREIGNTY refers to a family’s inherent right to autonomy and self-governance, independent of state interference
. This contrasts with family rights, which are specific, state-recognized legal protections granted to families. While family rights are subject to state regulation, family sovereignty asserts a more fundamental and independent sphere of authority.
