Hey everyone - here is the update of what happened a week and a half ago in the worlds first vote ever for negotiating a crimes against humanity treaty:

Long story short - THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT AND THE DEADLINE IS 2 YEARS! THANK GOD.

And it really is a long story of how MILLIONS of years went by with NO treaty ever made to prevent crimes against humanity.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SIGNED OUR REQUEST TO NEGOTIATE! We once again all got heard by the right people in time, and we got our way.

Below you will find in depth information on this once in a lifetime treaty negotiations and how different countries are thinking about it…

To us, we find it really interesting how each country had their own take.

We have NO idea how they will ever agree - but countries and civil society really needs to negotiate this particular treaty for the sake of future generations.

…and yes, if you are like us and concerned that the UN is sketchy, IDEALLY, we can have a version that oversee’s UN’s commitments to prevent crimes against humanity by civil society, which believe it or not, is the AWESOME direction this treaty negotiation is actually taking : ) Civil Society is part of this initiative WITH the States.

UN’s here and we can’t stop them overnight, so we better restrain them!

It’s worth mentioning that the law of crimes against humanity -as it is now- refers to the timeless definition of “man and woman”, so of course, the bulk of civil society lobbied to change man and woman to “gender” to reflect woke BS (they say to adhere to “current reflections” in society).

The Commission decided not to include the definition of “gender” that was contained in article 7, paragraph 3 of the Rome Statutes, which made many parties upset.

Let’s change the world folks! Lets make it a BINDING DUTY for all governments and international organizations like UN, WEF & WHO to prevent crimes against humanity.

We want to dismantle the UN ORGS, but while they stand, they should be bound to this treaty!

Costa Rica and 12 countries call this treaty URGENT to give them full power to use their Universal Jurisdiction!

Certain provisions of the draft articles expand the scope of universal jurisdiction, which is a principle on which the international community is divided. 

---

Share

Subscribe now

The reason we care so much and got involved is that we will need to add parts to the current treaty draft in order to make International Organizations ALSO responsible for the prevention of crimes against humanity!!!! It’s IMPORTANT! No one wants crimes against humanity!

The trailer video for why we need this treaty in case if you haven’t seen it yet:

The Variety Of Views Is Fascinating, Especially Considering We Are Talking About Duty To Prevent Mass Atrocities!

October 11, 2022 - The thorny nature of developing new international law amongst diverging State views again came to the fore in the Sixth Committee (Legal) on October 10, as delegates concluded their debate on the future of the International Law Commission’s draft articles on crimes against humanity.  (For background, see 2022 Press Release GA/L/3660.)

The representative of Algeria, urging those present to refrain from imposing legal principles that do not enjoy universal approval, expressed regret that the International Law Commission’s draft articles on crimes against humanity do not reflect the current state of international law or international customary practice.  While a convention governing such crimes would allow each country to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, he noted that core issues remain ambiguous and require further negotiation.

On that point, the representative of Saudi Arabia expressed concern that the draft articles’ introduction of new definitions might cause confusion, spotlighting the need to standardize terms such as “slavery”, “torture” and “enforced disappearances”.  He also noted that certain provisions within the draft articles expand the scope of universal jurisdiction, a principle on which the international community is currently divided.

The representative of Syria highlighted another complication, relating to the appropriate legal description of the new ways some States have adopted to provoke conflict across the world.  Questioning what the international community would call a siege imposed on a whole people or unilateral coercive measures that create food insecurity, he also pointed out that some States seek to justify their direct interference in conflicts using the excuses of combating terrorism or promoting democracy.

The representative of Mauritius underlined the importance of drawing lessons from other international mechanisms in which only specific groups of persons were being targeted by international prosecutors.  Such different perceptions can only breed resistance against a global treaty, making implementing such an instrument more difficult.  She therefore emphasized the urgency of having a treaty in place “as quickly as possible”.

The representative of Malaysia, noting that this is the fourth time the draft articles are before the Sixth Committee, expressed hope that they will be examined prudently to ensure that further work does not overlap with existing regimes but, rather, complements them.  She reported that Malaysian criminal law provides for the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against humanity, and that its international cooperation in this regard is governed by national legislation pertaining to extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

The representative of Belgium, noting the different views expressed by States, said that an ad hoc committee with a clear mandate and well-defined timetable would provide an appropriate framework for discussing different approaches.  She also added her support for the mutual-legal-assistance initiative, which focuses on the creation of a modern, detailed framework for mutual legal assistance and extradition relating to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.  This project is complementary to the draft articles, and the two should coexist and be developed in parallel, she emphasized.

The representative of Sri Lanka, however, observed that the phrase “crimes against humanity” suggested acts that aggrieve not only the victims, but all human beings, emphasizing that such offenses violate “the core humanity we all share that distinguishes us from other natural beings”.  Noting that law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against categories such as persons, property, the public order and morals, he underscored that the defining feature of crimes against humanity is the value they injure, namely, “humanness”. 

The representative of Jamaica noted that, despite numerous challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Nations internal justice system continued to function using flexible work arrangements.  He also welcomed the launch of the Caselaw Portal and Electronic Digest developed by the Office of Administration of Justice, which – now further enhanced with French-language capability – will serve to enhance the accessibility of cases addressed by the system.

The representative of Côte d’Ivoire similarly welcomed the increased multilingualism in the various departments of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal, encouraging the translation of important judicial documents into the Organization’s six working languages.  She also spotlighted the new “360-degree appraisal” method, which allows staff members to provide feedback to their supervisors.  This will serve as a “guarantee of transparency”, she noted.

The representative of the United States underscored the need for transparency in the internal justice system so that United Nations staff, their representatives and the General Assembly can better understand how the Tribunals are carrying out administrative justice. 

He also highlighted the importance of the informal system for dispute resolution, which seeks to prevent and resolve staff conflicts before they mature into formal disputes.

IOJ’s 11-11 Nuremberg Hearing against WHO shots authorizations was ORDERED by the Presidents office and REALLY still needs much more support! We are only 15% to the Attorney fees and yet the hearing is around the corner for the Presidents office to hear Dr. Yeadon and Sasha Latypova in an informal dispute setting that could really move mountains - Supporters of THIS mission are supporting the ONLY way to win and we cannot get this done without you! Please share and please care.

The WHO Internal Oversight sent IOJ’s case to “national authorities” to STOP the PCR & vax globally - You Can Help!!!

All contributions WILL make a real difference IN TIME!

Yes, I want to Contribute!

On that point, the representative of Switzerland highlighted the insufficient use of mediation as an informal dispute-resolution mechanism to resolve workplace conflicts.  Emphasizing that mediation must be promoted to a greater extent for all categories of personnel, she also stated that a fair, effective internal system for the administration of justice ‑ accessible to all ‑ lends greater credibility to the Organization’s commitment to equal access to justice and the rule of law.

At the end of the meeting, the Sixth Committee took up its agenda item on the United Nations common system, in which the Committee was invited to consider the legal aspects of the Secretary‑General’s report titled “Review of the jurisdictional set-up of the United Nations common system” (document A/77/222).

Also speaking on crimes against humanity were representatives of China, Nigeria, the Netherlands, Tunisia, France, Bolivia, Greece, Türkiye, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, Romania and Sri Lanka.  The observers for the State of Palestine and the Holy See also spoke.

Also speaking on the administration of justice at the United Nations were representatives of Morocco (for the African Group), New Zealand (also for Australia and Canada), Cameroon, Cuba, the Netherlands, China and Mexico.  A representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, also spoke.

The Sixth Committee met at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 12 October, to commence its debate on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Crimes against Humanity

GENG SHUANG (China), associating himself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, pointed out that, despite the divergence of views, discussions in the Sixth Committee regarding a dedicated convention on crimes against humanity reflect the issue’s high priority for the international community and should be continued.  Highlighting several such points of divergence ‑ including the definition of crimes against humanity, the application of universal jurisdiction, and the relationship between such a convention and domestic law ‑ he recalled a Chinese proverb that said, “sharpening the axe will not delay the task of chopping wood”.  Further consideration, therefore, will gradually bridge differences and pave the way for subsequent negotiations.  Adding that the Committee’s tradition of consensus must be respected, he noted that some delegations introduced a draft resolution on their own and indicated they were prepared to put it to a vote.  This is “not constructive at all,” he said.

Ms. AJAYI (Nigeria), associating herself with the African Group, called for continuous efforts to combat impunity for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.  For its part, Nigeria has enacted laws and introduced measures to deter the commission of such crimes.  The perpetrators of heinous crimes must be exposed and punished, and their victims must get justice.  Spotlighting the Government’s creation of an electronic case-file database to serve as a repository for cases and judgments relating to terrorism, she said that the same helps Nigerian prosecutors build better cases against the perpetrators of egregious crimes.  Turning to the global level, she stressed that the international community must be more united in the fight against impunity, and she called on Member States to cooperate in tackling such crimes.  She added that her country continues to support the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and encouraged those States yet to accede to do so.

ELISA DE RAES (Belgium), associating herself with the European Union, reiterated her support for the elaboration of a convention.  Recognizing the different points of views expressed by States, she noted that the ad hoc committee with a clear mandate and a well-defined timetable would be an appropriate framework to discuss different approaches and lead to a convention of an international conference.  She further voiced support for the mutual legal assistance initiative and its different material scope and approach.  The International Law Commission's draft articles on crimes against humanity take a holistic approach and aim to address a broad range of rules and concepts, with a focus on crimes against humanity.  The mutual legal assistance initiative focuses on the creation of a modern and detailed framework for mutual legal assistance and extradition in respect of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.  The two projects are complementary and should coexist and be developed in parallel, she added.

WIETEKE ELISABETH CHRISTINA THEEUWEN (Netherlands), aligning herself with the European Union, underscored that the existent gaps in legislation regarding crimes against humanity only prove the need of establishing a convention.  She strongly welcomed the opening of the treaty negotiations, underlining that the ad hoc committee would be an ideal forum for further examination of International Law Commission’s draft articles.  She underscored the importance of providing the committee with a clear mandate and timeline for the completion of its work.  Turning to the mutual legal assistance initiative, she noted that it is a modern operational framework for the prosecution of crimes, which is supported by 76 States and has similar objectives as the draft articles.  However, the instrument broadly differs in its material and scope from the draft articles, as it focuses on creating a detailed modern and comprehensive framework.  She underscored that the two projects are complementary and should be further developed in parallel.

ADEL BEN LAGHA (Tunisia), associating himself with the African Group, said that the International Law Commission, in elaborating the draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, fulfilled its role to identify gaps in the multilateral treaty framework; study State practice and legal opinions on the matter; codify existing rules of international customary law; and recommend the progressive development of international law.  The draft articles are a good basis on which to negotiate an international convention that would fill this gap and strengthen current international legal architecture.  Further, such an instrument would allow for the harmonization of germane national legislation.  Recalling that the Sixth Committee has not made much headway towards such a convention, however, he suggested a move towards structured, inclusive debate on the matter.  Creating an ad hoc committee is the best way to organize such a debate, he added, expressing hope that those present will support the proposal of Mexico to this end.

WALEED AL-ZAHRANI (Saudi Arabia), expressing concern that the draft articles’ introduction of new definitions might cause confusion, stressed the importance of standardizing terms such as “slavery”, “torture” and “enforced disappearances”, in compliance with relevant United Nations conventions.  He also noted that certain provisions of the draft articles expand the scope of universal jurisdiction, which is a principle on which the international community is divided.  It is therefore important to study State judicial proceedings within the framework of combating impunity, and to uphold recognized principles in international law, especially those of immunity and sovereign equality.  Highlighting the need to study all issues relating to the draft articles to build consensus among States, he voiced his support for achieving justice and international peace through the creation of a legal foundation that complies with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

DIARRA DIME LABILLE (France), associating herself with the European Union, added her support to the adoption of a convention, which would strengthen the international legal framework for combating the most serious crimes.  She expressed regret over the absence of substantive negotiations on the subject in the past two years, relating this to consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic.  She noted that at the present session of the General Assembly, delegations will be able to determine collectively how they wish to take ownership of the high-quality work conducted by the International Law Commission.  She reiterated her delegation’s readiness to engage in the “broadest and most transparent dialogue possible” with other delegations to finally forward on the agenda item.  She further emphasized that her country would continue to advocate for the universal adoption of a convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.

MOHAMED FAIZ BOUCHEDOUB (Algeria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, African Group and the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, spotlighted some positive aspects regarding the convention, underscoring that it will allow each country to exercise its criminal jurisdiction on crimes against humanity.  However, he noted that core issues remain ambiguous and require more serious negotiations.  He expressed regret that the draft articles do not reflect the current state of international law and international customary practices.  Recognizing that deliberations in the previous sessions made it clear that views of the States diverge regarding content or form of negotiations, he underscored that his country would maintain credibility of the resolutions and continue to adopt them by consensus through international transparent negotiations.  He further urged the States to avoid attempting to impose any legal principles through agreements that do not enjoy universal approval.

Ms. ROSSA (Bolivia) pointed out that violent events during the 2019 coup in her country could be considered crimes against humanity, recalling that the police and the military “put down” protests and those demonstrating against the Government were repressed.  Further, disproportionate force was used against indigenous people and civilians, motivated by hate.  Despite domestic prosecutorial efforts, she stressed the need for an international convention on this subject so that perpetrators do not enjoy impunity.  Expressing regret that progress towards this end in recent years has not been substantive, she spotlighted her country’s commitment to preventing and punishing all national and international crimes of this kind.  Bolivia will continue to prioritize the International Law Commission’s proposal for a convention against crimes against humanity in the Sixth Committee, she added.

NURUL AINY YAHAYA (Malaysia) stressed that access to justice, along with the universal standards of international law, should be preserved and upheld for everyone ‑ including the Palestinians, long suffering at the hands of the “apartheid Israeli regime”, as well as the people of Myanmar, including the Rohingya, that have been subjected to continued violence even before the military takeover in 2021.  For its part, Malaysia’s domestic criminal law provides for the prosecution of the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, and its international cooperation in this matter is governed by laws pertaining to extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters.  She went on to note that this is the fourth time the International Law Commission’s draft articles on this subject are before the Sixth Committee, expressing hope that the same will be examined prudently to ensure that further work does not overlap with existing regimes but, rather, complements them.

FOURTH TIME IS THE CHARM!

IOJ’s Nuremberg Hearing against WHO shots authorizations was ORDERED by the Presidents office and REALLY still needs much more support! We are only 15% to the Attorney fees and yet the hearing is around the corner for the Presidents office to hear Dr. Yeadon and Sasha Latypova - Supporters of THIS mission are supporting the ONLY way to win and we cannot get this done without you! Please share and please care.

All contributions WILL make a real difference IN TIME!

Yes, I want to Contribute!

MICHAEL STELLAKATOS LOVERDOS (Greece), associating himself with the European Union, voiced his support for the elaboration of a convention, adding that it was high time to establish an inclusive, effective and efficient framework that would allow concerns to be addressed.  The framework should include clear objectives and a timeline to achieve concrete results and deliverables.  In this respect, he called on States to engage constructively in the discussions on the draft resolutions.  He further emphasized that the elaboration of an international penal convention for the domestic criminalization, prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, adequately combined with the establishment of a procedural legal framework of inter-State cooperation in the fields of mutual legal assistance and extradition for core international crimes, would significantly enhance the ability of States to ensure accountability for such crimes, including the crimes against humanity. [IOJ agrees]

VREESHINI RAOJEE (Mauritius), stressed her support for the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee in 2023 to examine and exchange substantive views on the draft articles and to further consider the recommendation of the International Law Commission for the elaboration of a convention.  This will provide an opportunity to engage substantively on the content of the draft texts, within a clear and dedicated framework.  She underscored that the treaty should not only act as a serious deterrent to such crimes, but also provide adequate tools to investigate and conduct impartial proceedings against the persecutors.  She also underlined the importance of drawing lessons from other international mechanisms, in which only specific groups of persons were being targeted by international prosecutors.  Noting that such different perceptions can only breed resistance against a global treaty and make its implementation more difficult, she emphasized the urgency of having a treaty in place “as quickly as possible”.

Mr. KHADDOUR (Syria), associating himself with the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, pointed out that some States have adopted new ways of provoking conflicts across the world over the years, which make legal descriptions of such acts complicated.  On this point, he questioned what the international community would call a siege imposed on a whole people, or unilateral coercive measures and looting of State resources that deprive people of food security.  He also noted that some States seek to justify their direct interference in conflicts using the excuses of combating terrorism, promoting democracy or maintaining international peace and security.  They do so to avoid accountability ‑ also using proxies like terrorists or mercenaries to this end. However, when the State on whose territory such acts occur takes action in response, such response is called a crime against humanity, he pointed out.  This demonstrates that double standards are being employed, and he underscored that the primary responsibility for addressing serious crimes lies with the State concerned.

MINE OZGUL BILMAN (Türkiye) stated that crimes against humanity have been codified in Turkish criminal law and constitute a category of crimes over which universal jurisdiction may be exercised if the necessary conditions are met.  She observed, however, that the Sixth Committee’s extensive discussions on this topic over the past few years demonstrate that this issue is complex and yet to be codified in national legislations in a uniform manner.  Further, a considerable number of States share the concern that this category of crimes can be particularly susceptible to non-legal motives.  She therefore supported a meaningful, structured discussion in the Committee on this topic that follows established practice.  This is a crucial step before the Committee makes any further recommendations relating to substance or procedure to the General Assembly, she said.  She added that this process would be facilitated through an advance circulation of States’ written views on the matter.

RABIA IJAZ (Pakistan) said that it was premature to draw any concrete conclusion on the nature and format of the draft articles without prior in-depth discussions.  Highlighting divergences between the States and noting their concerns regarding the content of some of the draft articles, in particular draft articles 7, 9 and 10, she urged that care be taken to avoid introducing new definitions that could create uncertainty as to the interpretation of these terms.  Recognizing that more time is needed to allow the delegations to study draft articles, she suggested setting up a working group in the Sixth Committee to enable in-depth discussions, which could potentially lead to consensus.  She also underscored the importance of focusing on legal issues of the draft articles, avoiding politicization and selectivity and create a framework that genuinely addresses the issue of accountability and impunity for crime against humanity, in full conformity with the principles and objectives of the Charter.

ANDY ARON (Indonesia) stressed that crimes against humanity may be more widespread than genocide or war crimes, as they may occur in situations not involving armed conflict and do not require the intent to destroy certain groups of people, in whole or in part, as the crime of genocide does.  Underscoring the importance of having consensus on the draft articles, he said that consultations are necessary to deepen understanding on the matter.  Spotlighting draft articles 6 and 7, he emphasized the need to preserve the States’ primary responsibility to exercise their national criminal jurisdiction for such crime occurring on their territories.  Indonesia established a law on the Human Rights Court that criminalized crimes against humanity and established its national jurisdiction.  In addition, to further complement the national legal infrastructure, cooperation among States was also important.  To that end, his country has concluded 13 extradition treaties and 10 mutual legal assistance in criminal matters treaties with other countries, as well as one regional mutual legal assistance treaty among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. [IOJ applauds this]

YARDEN RUBINSHTEIN (Israel), supporting the establishment of a forum within the framework of the Sixth Committee for a potential elaboration of a future convention, spotlighted the divergent views of Member States demonstrated during the previous Committee sessions, both regarding the substantive content of the draft articles and their future framework.  Recognizing these differences, she underscored the importance of achieving progress with regard to the draft articles and finding a path forward.  She further reiterated support for the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee to examine the draft articles and enable meaningful and inclusive discussions among States.  In this regard, she noted that the principle of consensus within the Sixth Committee was a significant element for maintaining the unity and consistency of international law.  She further reiterated her country’s willingness and commitment to the efforts for the development of international law.

ALIS LUNGU (Romania), associating herself with the European Union, said that although crimes against humanity were among the most serious crimes, no dedicated multilateral treaty existed.  By contrast, the prevention and punishment of genocide and war crimes were the subjects of widely ratified multilateral treaties, she said.  That gap needed to be corrected and a coherent approach needed to be adopted to ensure that no fragmentation occurred, especially with regards to inter-State cooperation and mutual legal assistance, she added.  Only in this manner could the overall objective of prevention and punishment of these crimes be effectively attained.  Expressing her support for developing the draft articles into a convention, she said that despite delegations’ engagement and interest, discussions in the Sixth Committee have fallen short of a thorough consideration of the Commission’s clear recommendation.  Within the existing constraints and practices, Romania has tried to contribute to this process, from various roles and perspectives, she noted.  The seventy-seventh session was a new opportunity to agree on establishing a dedicated forum and timeframe which would allow for open substantive exchanges between delegations on the articles and the Commission’s recommendation, she said.

PETER MOHAN MAITHRI PIERI (Sri Lanka) observed that the phrase “crimes against humanity” suggested acts that aggrieve not only the victims, but all human beings.  It also suggested that such offenses violate “the core humanity we all share that distinguishes us from other natural beings”.  This dual meaning gives the term great potency, but also gives rise to ambiguity centred on the meaning of “humanity”, as this word can mean both the quality of being human and the aggregation of all human beings, he noted.  Noting that law traditionally distinguishes between crimes against categories such as persons, property, the public order and morals, he said that the defining feature of crimes against humanity is the value they injure ‑ namely, “humanness”.  On this point, it is important to note that “violating humanness” and “offending humankind” are not the same thing.  While atrocity crimes are most likely to occur in situations of armed conflict, crimes against humanity have also occurred outside of such situations.  Therefore, the international community must react to early warning signs of such crimes, while also insisting on early action to respond to the same, he said.

LOUREEN O. A. SAYEJ, observer for the State of Palestine, voiced her support for the International Law Commission’s recommendation to elaborate a convention, based on its draft articles on crimes against humanity, that reflects well-established principles of customary international law.  Such efforts were not merely a legal exercise; rather, they would allow the international community to “put the forces of international law at the service of the protection of humanity when it is most threatened”.  Further, this would leave no victim behind and no perpetrator immune and would also prevent the law from being subjected to the whims of political powers.  She went on to say that the crimes sought to be codified and punished ‑ extermination, forcible transfer, apartheid, persecution, murder, enslavement, torture and rape ‑ are systematic, widespread, devastating and persistent.  They demand immediate action, and the community of nations can neither dismiss this issue nor delay it, she added.

GABRIELE CACCIA, Permanent Observer for the Holy See, said that, although crimes against humanity were conceptually distinct from war crimes, the fact was that civilians were particularly at risk wherever war raged for massacres, torture, rape and the deliberate targeting of civilian areas, among others.  Furthermore, enslavement and human trafficking are some of the darkest and most revolting realities in the world today.  Millions of men, women and children were being enslaved, sold and trafficked as part of a systemic attack on civilians.  Member States held the primary responsibility for protecting civilian populations.  However, some domestic legal systems lacked either laws to prosecute such crimes or the capacity to investigate them.  In that context, a global convention on crimes against humanity would further strengthen the current framework of international humanitarian law, international criminal law and human rights law.  However, he expressed regret regarding the Commission’s decision not to include the definition of “gender” that was contained in article 7, paragraph 3 of the Rome Statutes.

Share

Interest of Justice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work to continue, consider becoming a contributor or paid subscriber.

IOJ’s Nuremberg Hearing against WHO shots authorizations was ORDERED by the Presidents office and REALLY still needs much more support! We are only 15% to the Attorney fees and yet the hearing is around the corner for the Presidents office to hear Dr. Yeadon and Sasha Latypova - Supporters of THIS mission are supporting the ONLY way to win and we cannot get this done without you! Please share and please care.

All contributions WILL make a real difference IN TIME!

Yes, I want to Contribute!

Leave a comment

The story:

VP & President Fight Back Against 'Selective Justice' - It’s getting crazy folks!

Next Day After Being Raided, The VP/Health Minister Files Her 3rd Criminal Lawsuit For State Elderly Crimes, Corruption & Manslaughter From 2016-2021

Costa Rica’s Corrupt Slow Ass Attorney General Carlo Diaz and His Selective Justice - VP Mary Munive Calls it OUT

(She’s the ONLY one in the world to REJECT Pandemic Treaty - she’s a bad ass)

Wow folks, keep your eye on Costa Rica! We are about to go through the great awakening. It is time to combat impunity!

The VP sounds like she went through the EXACT runaround IoJ did from the judiciary and prosecutor not doing their job…

Good news is she ain’t taking no crap and is cleaning the swamp.

Prosecutors Ignore Health Care Murder, but prosecutes nonsense charges against President & Health Minister instead.

President Chaves & VP Mary Munive Fight Back!

While the Attorney General (who sucks & doesn’t do anything), Carlo Diaz, raids the Ministry of Health for alleged evidence of a plot by President Rodrigo Chaves against Grupo Nación and its Parque Viva (which the Health Minister and President say they simply shut down invalid permits), Vice President and Minister of Health, Mary Munive, highlights worrying signs of corruption, embezzlement, negligence, sexual abuse, and even manslaughter within the National Council of the Elderly (CONAPAM).

VP & Health Minister Mary Munive revealed that two years ago, she approached the Attorney General with these concerns, but he ignored her, showing negligence.

The government filed another criminal complaint regarding serious irregularities in CONAPAM between 2016 and 2021, including unsanitary conditions and abuse of the elderly.

Despite complaints, CONAPAM allegedly did not investigate. Outsourcing services irregularly led to an elderly person's death during a transfer. The government is committed to ensuring the well-being of seniors.

VP Munive expressed frustration over 21 months of inaction despite repeated complaints to the Attorney General. Alleged acts include embezzlement, misuse of state resources, and manslaughter. Despite evidence, no action has been taken.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General focuses on investigating President Chaves and others for allegedly creating a criminal syndicate to close Parque Viva, a claim Chaves calls absurd. Both the President and Vice President criticize the prosecution's priorities and emphasize the government's duty to protect citizens' health and safety.

Share

Donate

Leave a comment

If you haven’t signed the demand for the Crimes Against Humanity treaty, it’s the VERY last chance to sign now, the vote is OCTOBER 10!

Link to sign the demand: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/cahtreaty/

END OF POST - The following is the full transcript for the very few that interested!

Full Transcript

President, the following is a topic more delicate than in other administrations. They kicked the ball; that's why this government is characterized by attending directly to this type of situation. Mrs. Mari Munive, Vice President of the Republic and Minister of Health, accompanies us to give Costa Ricans a full report on what is happening in the National Council of the Elderly, known as CONAPAM. But first, let's look at the following:

The government of the Republic filed a criminal complaint on Tuesday in the face of a series of serious irregularities presented in the National Council of the Adult Person. The events occurred between 2016 and 2021, according to the preliminary investigation ordered by the President of the Republic. Among the more serious issues are unsanitary conditions of some centers and abuse of older adults. There are even cases of investigated sexual abuse. The most delicate thing is that despite having complaints, CONAPAM allegedly did not investigate. The government also identified that some centers outsourced services irregularly, sending older adults to places that did not have permits or conditions suitable for dignified treatment. As a result, an older adult unfortunately died during a transfer.

With this complaint and other measures already being implemented, the government ratifies its commitment to ensure the well-being of our seniors.

President and general population, for 21 months, I have been silent about this. For 21 months, I have been going through this great pain, and for 21 months, I have generated the expectation that some justice will be done and the law applied.

In December 2022, I realized once again the priorities of some powers of the Republic. Just today, but there are only three of which one. Now, I'm going to explain about yesterday. It was presented as the video said, one complaint following a request generated by you, Mr. President, to verify irregularities in CONAPAM for a long time. This research is not the first presented before the Public Ministry, Mr. President. No, it is the second, and it is the third presented to the Public Prosecutor's Office for reasons linked to alleged irregular facts.

From 2022, you entrusted me to direct politically to the social sector, and I accompanied one of the entities attached to the presidency, like CONAPAM. Certain irregularities were assessed, and the previous director was removed. The new Director, Emilia Mora, presents the denunciation of this outsourcing of services where homes received benefits because they were auditable and complied with suitable requirements. They outsourced these services, and we realized at a time when one supposedly had more than 300 elderly people and received benefits of more than 2.5 billion colones. Well, how did he come to be audited? Surprise, as you indicated to us, Mr. President. We realized there were less than 10 people when there should have been more than 300.

They quickly began to call all these outsourced homes, and in one of those transfers, an elderly person died. Not only that, but several older adults were assessed in deplorable conditions. Here is where, Mr. President, with the pain of my soul and above all to verify and see the proof, the photos, and what had happened, I went directly to the Attorney General. Please talk to Don Carlo and tell him we need to do something about this. We cannot generate structural modifications and improvements to support the older adult population if this is happening from within. Please help us.

The first time I went was December 12, 2020, and it never goes away. Almost two years, 21 months ago, boss, I had a great time that December, but it did not stop there because other things started to come out. In April 2023, I again turned to the prosecutor's office and put before the Ministry again to expand the complaint. I spoke to the prosecutor again directly and told him not to make me lose faith in judicial power. I need you to do something. See what's happening. Help us help this vulnerable population.

Alleged acts were embezzlement, diversion of state resources, prevarication by public officials, authorizations that did not correspond, embezzlement of funds, and a manslaughter—a death of a person abandoned where it was ordered to the government to take care of it and above all to the institution formed for that protection.

This is where I tell you the priorities of the powers of the Republic. Today, we were raided to search with the prosecutor general and five senior magistrates a pile of papers at the Ministry level health, but something that allegedly could be a homicide is sleeping the sleep of the righteous.

For 21 months, boss, okay, good. So, I appreciate the passion and love for older adults and children of Costa Rica that you and the population in general have. The first complaint you make today is here. We have 21 months of having filed a complaint about CONAPAM and the abuses that exist, even the death by negligent homicide allegedly. Okay, no action has been taken. You repeated the complaint that the judiciary has not done anything. Then this is the first complaint. Now, what are we going to do, minister?

Madam Minister, from December 2022, corrections were made in the administrative part. Improvements have been made, but certain things continued, and a new, different addressing is required. That's where you delegate this third hat to me as president of the National Council of the Elderly Person.

Now, from this governing board, we will take administrative action.

Second, we already have this bill, ladies and gentlemen. CONAPAM cannot remain attached to the presidency of the Republic. There is research where since 2016, there are alleged irregularities until 2021, which was presented to the public ministry and administratively we are evolving at the board table. But again, because it cannot be adrift, an institution with such importance for such an important population in the country, the bill is being presented today to transfer the National Council of the Elderly Person to the Ministry of Health as one more member to be able to hug and also be able to look at him with a watchful eye.

To be clear, the government cannot change the law. There is a bill to fix CONAPAM in the judiciary in power. This legislative, the judicial power shines for its absence before or by its actions before the complaints you have made repeatedly. Very well, ministers, thank you. Today, they raided the Ministry of Health, the Attorney General, because the Attorney General told the Third Chamber, which is the Supreme Court of the matter penalty, that I, Rodrigo Chavez, had created a kind of criminal syndicate. That is what Don Carlos Diaz says in his argument before the third chamber to close Parque Viva. It was worth investigating the server of you, the leader of the band, the director of firefighters, the traffic director, the minister of public works and transport of that time, and many entities because they had fallen into a game that is, according to them, to close Parque Viva for reasons different from public well-being. That is absurd.

In addition to being one more example of the institutionality in this case of the prosecution and the third chamber, President Patricia Solano being people who captured those institutions to try to harm the government, try to harass, arm, and try to shut up. That's what they are doing because I would have celebrated that the attorney general had taken action in this case of CONAPAM, where resources were obviously stolen.

Public would have celebrated that they already would have questioned Jimena Rueda, who sent or called me murdered, would have celebrated that they already would have taken the Aldesa case to trial where they stole, apparently, or diverted millions, hundreds of millions of dollars per track, so many things, but you don't have to do one investigation authorized by the chamber third to see how it was that I led a criminal group that these people I just mentioned for affect Parque Viva and the nation to me.

I was delighted to see that these raids would have been of that the prosecution got its act together to see how it was that Parque Viva obtained building permits, operation, etc., the municipality of the grandmother and other state entities in previous governments that all lights were illegal.

Chaves discreetly disses WEF's impunity

Is that the nation truth, and the nation still has tentacles deep with these institutions? Why did the prosecution not investigate the tried of this Carlos Alvarado [WEF's YOUNGEST & most corrupt YGL ever - IOJ] and the group I don't know [WEF] who signed the group La Nación that signed an agreement to build them a branch of the railway electric to the Parque Viva for benefit them directly as well that the owners of the free zone of Coyol at the tiny cost of 150,000 millions of us?

No, we are not even trying to do nothing but comply with the Constitution Policy of protecting life of the health of Costa Ricans is an obligation of government.

Here I say to Mrs. Patricia Solano that here are open the doors, come investigate this and in any other case, my duty as President of the Republic is to defend it to you, compatriot. I have 5.2 million bosses. There are others that have a very large amount reduced number of bosses but very powerful and act to benefit those bosses. You deposited your trust in me, and that action of the Parque Viva, they say, Ah, it's that Chavez in the campaign.

He said that the nation and has had conflicts with them for supposed, but from there to fight a neighbor to kill him for fighting with a neighbor on issues I believe in to be right, from there to say that we acted criminally with this Parque Viva is absurd.

That is not a whim for us. The complaints and reports came in technicians go what the management says General of the Public Force of Alajuela. Based on the above, an opinion is issued technician concluding that indeed there is an impact to the detriment of police service in the perimeter immediate Parque Viva when it is they carry out activities of a character massive says the Ministry of Health in accordance with the principle precautionary measure is temporarily suspended sanitary permit for the operation of the Parque Viva, says the fire department. There are several communities like Rincón, little Rincon Herrera, very very very central, just like their own living park facilities that are could see affected because time of response fire units enta considerably when there are events massive in this place.

No, I'm not saying it, Carlo, you have the documents. Yes, you believe that there is a conspiracy to doing that is totally wrong. There are technical documents of people honest as firefighters, management transit, etc., and that you now he says that he is in your protection La Nación group. I imagine because I don't see another thing says that there was an act criminal on our part for wanting solve that risk, see, gentlemen. Magistrates of the constitutional chamber see Don Carlos Diaz Attorney General see Mrs. Patricia Solano with all magistrates from the third room, with all due respect, I pray every day that there is no fire or an emergency while Parque Viva invoices the income from a concert and that someone is going to die because of that. They obtained those permits in a manner questionable without complying with La regulation and that since then from the ruling of the fourth chamber as far as I know it has not been done absolutely nothing from the owners of that entertainment park which is the true nation group for solve the situation there Costa Rica does not I'm going to make them like me

once again who like Benito Juarez said

To my enemies the law is already applied. To my friends, I interpret

an obvious and notorious case of harassment and stalking of the government by having done the right thing. And yes, maybe not you like the things we have said lately, but I want to inform you that's what's happening to me.

They want to remain silent, they will not be able to while I have your support. The question is what I have. Let's go see.

Between Voices - Carlo Diaz and his selective justice: Conapam vs. Parque Viva

While the Attorney General, Carlo Diaz, raids the Ministry of Health for alleged evidence of a plot by President Rodrigo Chaves against Grupo Nación and its Parque Viva, Vice President and Minister of Health, Mary Munive, highlights worrying signs of corruption, embezzlement, negligence, sexual abuse, and even manslaughter within the National Council of the Elderly (CONAPAM). Munive revealed that two years ago, she approached the Attorney General with these concerns, but he ignored her, showing negligence.

The government filed a criminal complaint regarding serious irregularities in CONAPAM between 2016 and 2021, including unsanitary conditions and abuse of the elderly. Despite complaints, CONAPAM allegedly did not investigate. Outsourcing services irregularly led to an elderly person's death during a transfer. The government is committed to ensuring the well-being of seniors.

Munive expressed frustration over 21 months of inaction despite repeated complaints to the Attorney General. Alleged acts include embezzlement, misuse of state resources, and manslaughter. Despite evidence, no action has been taken.

The government plans to transfer CONAPAM to the Ministry of Health for better oversight.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General focuses on investigating President Chaves and others for allegedly creating a criminal syndicate to close Parque Viva, a claim Chaves calls absurd. He criticizes the prosecution's priorities and emphasizes the government's duty to protect citizens' health and safety.

Subscribe now

Share

IOJ’s co-founders signed as Lord Dustin Bryce and Lady Xylie Desiree. Interest of Justice, Free Speech Association & Stop Crimes Against Humanity also signed as civil society organizations, so we added our 5 signatures total and pray it helps to convince the countries to finally create a treaty on crimes against humanity.

Because no one on Earth made a form for you all to sign as individual people to ask YOUR opinion, we hooked you all up with a demand form to sign and share.

It’s only for civil society, so we made you all a form to sign. Yesterday we had MAJOR problems where only 40 people could get it to work - we CHANGED the form entirely just now (if you are one of the 40 able to get through and signed we got them and will use them - THANK YOU)

Sign To Demand Treaty

https://www.noticeanddemand.org/cahtreaty/

Notice and Demand is an Interest Of Justice Project currently in the making and all support goes to humanitarian efforts. Thank you for being a part of IoJ Family!

Share

IOJ will post again today and tomorrow before the HISTORICAL vote hoping to give some extra pressure with your signatures as they go into this historical vote!

FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ONLY:

Joint Statement in Support of Progress toward a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty

The undersigned organizations and individuals — with representation from multiple geographic regions — express our support for a global convention on crimes against humanity, and urge states to express strong support for a procedure to be adopted at the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to move the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity forward to negotiations for a treaty.

Throughout history, millions of people have been subjected to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution, and other atrocities that have shocked the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity continue unabated across the globe and the Draft Articles provide a timely and urgent opportunity for states to help end impunity.

Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. A treaty on crimes against humanity would close a crucial gap in the current international framework on mass atrocities as well as clarifying states’ duties to prevent such crimes and means to cooperate with each other. A crimes against humanity treaty can also rightfully contribute to global affirmation of the gravity of these crimes.

In 2013, the UN’s International Law Commission approved crimes against humanity to be included in its programme of work. The Commission, in 2019, recommended the elaboration of a convention by the UN General Assembly or by an international conference. 

In 2022, the UN’s Sixth Committee adopted resolution 77/249 to take forward steps for a treaty on crimes against humanity, including two interactive sessions in 2023 and 2024 on the Draft Articles, and a plan to take a decision on the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty go forward in the 79th session of the General Assembly.

We believe the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles represent a strong starting point to open negotiations on a treaty. There is broad agreement that the Draft Articles contain a number of positive elements, and differences in perspectives on the existing Draft Articles should not be used to perpetuate inaction. Accordingly, we urge states to follow the Commission’s recommendation that a treaty on crimes against humanity should be negotiated, either by the General Assembly itself or in a Diplomatic Conference convened for that purpose.

Our organizations also urge states to identify important areas for further strengthening the Draft Articles. A variety of civil society groups have developed proposals toward this end. These include strengthening the proposed treaty by a variety of means.

We urge states also to express overall support for an approach to the development of a crimes against humanity treaty that is gender-competent, survivor-centric, and deploys an intersectional lens. This includes ensuring the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision to apply and interpret the treaty’s provisions consistent with international human rights law.

We believe it is equally essential that the treaty-making process itself is inclusive. States should facilitate meaningful, inclusive, and safe public and civil society participation from across the region, in all stages of the treaty-development process, including by people of all gender identities, as well as victims, survivors, and affected communities, and ensure that their voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty.

Español

Français

Signatory Organizations:

1. 21 Century Forum

2. Abogados Sin Fronteras Canadá

3. The Acalypha Child Care Initiative (Nigeria)

4. ACIEDD (Tchad)

5. Action des Chretiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture au Burundi

6. Action for Change

7. Action Network for Gender Equity & Law

8. ADIFEVEA World (DRC)

9. Adovicuganda International

10. Afghanistan Human Rights Advocates

11. Africa Center for International Law and Accountability (Ghana)

12. Africa Legal Aid

13. African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies

14. African Network Against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances

15. African Platform for Human Rights and Governance

16. AfricanDefenders

17. Afrique Performance (Benin)

18. Agewell Foundation (India)

19. Al-Haq (Palestine)

20. Al Mezan Center for Human Rights (Palestine)

21. Alerte Congolaise pour l’environnement et les droits de l’homme

22. All Survivors Project

23. Alliance Internationale pour la Défense des droits et des libertés

24. Alpha Support Development Programme (Kenya)

25. ALTSEAN – Burma

26. The America Team for Displaced Eritreans

27. Amnesty International

28. Anti-Domestic Violence Center (Uganda)

29. Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace (New Zealand)

30. ApiriHallowed Foundation (Benin)

31. The Arrested Lawyers Initiative (Brussels)

32. Ascend Youth Zambia

33. ASD-INKINGI (Uganda)

34. Ashtar Development Organization

35. Asia Justice Coalition

36. Asian American Center of Frederick

37. Asian Muslim Action Network (Thailand)

38. Asian Resource Foundation (Thailand)

39. Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos

40. Associação Jurista ba Justisa (Timor-Leste)

41. l’Association des victimes, parents et Amis du 28 septembre 2009 (Guinea)

42. Association for the Welfare of Women and Indigenous People (Cameroon)

43. Association of World Citizens (France)

44. Association pour le Développement des Initiatives Paysannes (DRC)

45. Associazione di solidarietà donne per le donne

46. Athena Tech & Atrocities Advisory

47. Australian Centre for International Justice

48. Avaaz

49. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication

50. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (India)

51. Basel Peace Office (Switzerland)

52. Better Tomorrow for Child Empowerment Foundation (Nigeria)

53. Biafra Government in Exile

54. Blaž Golob GFS Institute (Slovenia)

55. Burma Human Rights Network

56. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

57. Cameroon Women’s Peace Movement

58. Canada’s Feminist Forum for Afghanistan

59. Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture

60. Center for Accountability and Rule of Law – Sierra Leone

61. Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

62. Center Against Human Trafficking and Sexual Violence in Conflict

63. Center for Human Rights Advocacy

64. Center for Human Rights in Iran

65. The Center for International and Comparative Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law

66. Center for Justice and Accountability

67. Center for Peace Building and Democracy in Liberia

68. Centre for Democracy and Human Rights

69. Centre International de Droit Comparé de l’Environnement (France)

70. Centre Libanais des Droits Humains

71. Centre for Policy Alternatives (Sri Lanka)

72. Centre de Recherche sur l’environnement, la démocratie et les droits de l’homme (DRC)

73. El Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (Argentina)

74. Centro de Análisis Forense y Ciencias Aplicadas (Guatemala)

75. Centre for Social and Behaviour Change Communication (India)

76. Centre for Social Mobilization and Sustainable Development (Ghana)

77. Centre to Empower All Survivors of Exploitation and Trafficking

78. Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional

79. Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Género – Corporación Humanas (Chile)

80. Child Rescue Foundation (Zambia)

81. CIDA Organisation

82. The Circle

83. Citizens for Global Solutions

84. Civil Centre for Peace, Justice and Development (Nigeria)

85. Civil Education is the Solution for Poverty and Environmental Management (Tanzania)

86. Civil Rights Defenders

87. Civitas Maximas

88. The Coalition Burundaise des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme

89. Coalition contre l’impunite (Tchad)

90. Coalition des Volontaires pour la Paix et le Développement (DRC)

91. Coalition for the Prevention of Hazara Genocide (Afghanistan)

92. La Coalition Ivoirienne pour la Cour Pénale International

93. Coalition for the Prevention of Hazara Genocide

94. Coalition for the Promotion of Women’s Rights (Nigeria)

95. Coalition of Somali Human Rights Defenders

96. Coalitions de l’Afrique Francophone pour la Cour Penale Internationale

97. CobraCrusade Lira

98. Comisión de Derechos Humanos

99. Le Comité National pour la Prévention et la Répression du Génocide des crimes de guerres crimes contre l’humanité et de toute forme de Discrimination de la République Démocratique du Congo

100. Committee For Justice (Egypt)

101. The Common Good Foundation

102. Community Empowerment for Progress Organization

103. Community Peace Practitioners Association (Nigeria)

104. Community Women Peace Mediators (Cameroon)

105. Concern for Integrated Development (Ethiopia)

106. Congress of Nations and States

107. Corruption Brakes Crusade (Uganda)

108. Crimes Against Humanity Initiative

109. CSO Advocacy Platform of Liberia

110. Darfur Bar Association

111. Darfur Network for Human Rights

112. Darfur Women’s Action Group

113. Debotional and Dedicated Services Community Development Organization (Tanzania)

114. Defend International

115. DefendDefenders (Uganda)

116. Defense Sans Frontière-Avocats Solidaires

117. DePaul University College of Law – International Human Rights Law Institute

118. DIGNITY – Danish Institute Against Torture

119. Disability Rights International

120. Divine Foundation for Disabled Persons (Nigeria)

121. Dr. Denis Mukwege Foundation (The Hague)

122. The Duty Legacy

123. Echoes of Women in Africa Initiative (Nigeria)

124. Eden Centre (Zimbabwe)

125. Education as a Vaccine (Nigeria)

126. Educational and Health Organization for Afghanistan Women

127. EnGendeRights (Philippines)

128. Ensaaf

129. Environnemental Frontline (DRC)

130. Eritrea Focu

131. Eritrean Afar National Congress

132. European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

133. Every Woman Treaty

134. The European Law Students’ Association

135. Fantanka (The Gambia)

136. Farida e.V. (Farida Global Organization)

137. Femena

138. Finnish Afghans Center

139. Fondation Bill Clinton pour la Paix (DRC)

140. Food and Rural Development Foundation (Cameroon)

141. Food4Humanity (Yemen)

142. Fortify Rights

143. Forum of Nigerian Women in Politics (Nigeria)

144. Forum des organisations nationales humanitaires et de développement (DRC)

145. Foundation Builders (Nigeria)

146. Foundation for Human Rights and Democracy (Liberia)

147. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative – Uganda

148. FrameOut (Sri Lanka)

     

149. Free Speech Association

150. Free Yezidi Foundation

151. Fundación Internacional Baltasar Garzón

152. Fundación para el Debido Proceso

153. The Gambia Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children

154. Geitasamo Paralegal Organization

155. Gender Action for Peace and Security

156. Gender Centre for Empowering Development

157. Generation for Rights Over the World

158. Generation of Change (Pakistan)

159. Genocide Alert (Germany)

160. Global Call to Action Against Poverty

161. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

162. Global Compliance Research Project

163. Global Justice and Research Project (Liberia)

164. Global Justice Center

165. Global Missions International (Nigeria)

166. Global Peace and Development Organization (Kenya)

167. Global Rights Compliance

168. Global Security Institute

169. Global Survivor’s Fund (Switzerland)

170. Grace Agenda (Kenya)

171. Groupe d’associations de défense des droits de l’homme et de la Paix (DRC)

172. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (Lebanon)

173. HakiMadini

174. Happy Phage (South Africa)

175. Hazara Society Policy Center

176. Hikima Community Mobilization and Development Initiative (Nigeria)

177. Hitma Organization for Cultural and Social Development

178. Hope Advocates Africa

179. Horn Afrik News Agency for Human Rights

180. Human Rescue DRC

181. Human Rights and Development in Africa

182. Human Rights Concern – Eritrea

183. Human Rights Defenders Network – Sierra Leone

184. Human Rights Sanrakshan Sansthaa

185. Human Rights Watch

186. ICR Justice Africa

187. IDHEAS Litigio Estratégico en Derechos Humanos

188. Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples North East Zone

189. Initiative for Gender Transformation, Education and Community Development (Nigeria

190. Initiative for Good Governance and Transparency in Tanzania

191. INMAA Organization for Development (Iraq)

192. Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa

193. Institute for Security Studies (South Africa)

194. Integrity Initiatives International

     

195. Interest of Justice

196. Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace

197. International Action Network for Gender Equity & Law

198. International Association of Genocide Scholars

199. International Association of People’s Lawyers

200. International Center for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of MultiGenerational Legacies of Trauma

201. International Civil Society Action Network

202. International Commission of Jurists

203. International Commission of Jurists, Kenya Section

204. International Commission of Jurists, Norway

205. International Community for Georgia Development and the Progress

206. International Federation for Human Rights

207. International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture

208. International Helping for the Young (Chat)

209. International Humanitarian Law and Youth Initiative

210. The International Network on Disability, Peace and Security

211. International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Nigeria)

212. International Service for Human Rights

213. International Society for Health and Human Rights

214. International Tribunal of Conscience of Peoples in Movement

215. Investigator Organization for the Rule of Law (Iraq)

216. Invisible Children

217. Instituto de estudios comparados en ciencias penales de Guatemala

218. Ishtar Development Organization (Syria)

219. Islamic Women’s Association for Research and Empowerment (Sri Lanka)

220. Italian Federation for Human Rights

221. Iteka Initiative

222. Jumuiya ya Maendeleo ya Elimu ya Wototo Pemba

223. Just Planet

224. Justice Access Point (Uganda)

225. Justice House (MENA Region)

226. Justicia Asbl (DRC)

227. Keen and Care Initiative (Nigeria)

228. Kenya Human Rights Commission

229. Kinnapa Development Programme (Tanzania)

230. Kosova Rehabilitation Center for Torture Victims

231. Laboratorio de Litigio Estructural

232. Law Office of Lori J. Williams, LLC

233. Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

234. Lawyers for Human Rights (South Africa)

235. League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran

236. Legal Action Worldwide

237. Legal Defence and Assistance Project (Nigeria)

238. Legal Resources Centre (South Africa)

239. Liberty Sparks

240. Libyan Human Rights Clinic

241. Ligue Burundaise des droits de l’homme Iteka (Rwanda)

242. Ligue des Droits de la personne dans la région des Grands-Lacs (Burundi, Rwanda, and DRC)

243. L’Organisation Guinéenne de Défense des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen

244. Luz de Esperanza Desaparecidos Jalisco A. C. (Mexico)

245. MADRE

246. Mahabad Organisation for Human Rights

247. Marci Roth World Institute on Disability

248. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

249. MAUJ Foundation (Syria)

250. Minnesota Peace Project

251. Missing Persons Families Group (Türkiye and Syria)

252. Mizan Organization for Legal Studies on Human Rights

253. Mobilized News

254. Monitor de Derechos Humanos (Venezuela)

255. Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights

256. Mozambique Human Rights Defenders Network

257. Musawa

258. My World México

259. National Forum for Human Rights (Yemen)

260. National Lawyers Guild – San Francisco Bay Chapter

261. National Lawyers Guild Task Force on the Americas

262. Netwomening Association (Spain)

263. New Humanity

264. Never Again International – Canada

265. Nigeria Human Rights Defenders Network

266. Non-Governmental Coordinating Council (Zambia)

267. Nord-Kivu Hjelpeforening

268. Northern Justice Watch

269. Norwegian Helsinki Committee

270. La Nouvelle Société Civile Congolaise

271. Omeria Community Development Organization

272. ONG Amaranta (Chile)

273. Operation Broken Silence

274. Organisation for Gender, Civic Engagement and Youth Development Cameroon

275. Our Culture is Giving

276. Outright International

277. PA “Social Technologies Agency” (Kyrgyzstan)

278. Pan African Lawyers Union

279. Parliamentarians for Global Action

280. Partners in Justice International

281. Partnership for Justice (Nigeria)

282. Peace and Humanitarian Association (Cameroon)

283. Peace Track Initiative (Canada and Yemen)

284. Pemba Child Rights Environment and Malaria Control Organization

285. People for Successful Corean Unification (South Korea and US)

286. Persons Against Non-State Torture

287. Physicians for Human Rights

288. Platform for Social Justice (Uganda)

289. The Populace Foundation International (Uganda)

290. Prime Peace Foundation (Ghana)

291. Programa Venezolano de Educación Acción en Derechos Humanos (Venezuela)

292. Progressive Voice (Myanmar)

293. Protection Approaches

294. Raising Up Friendship Foundation (Tanzania)

295. Reach Out Cameroon

296. Red Federal de Estudios sobre el Derecho Humano a la Paz (Argentina)

297. Redress

298. Regional Advocacy for Women’s Sustainable Advancement (MENA)

299. The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in Southwest Asia and North Africa

300. Renand Foundation (Haiti)

301. Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (Senegal)

302. Researchers Without Borders (Uganda)

303. Réseau des Défenseurs des Droits Humains en Afrique Centrale

304. Reseau Equitas Cote d’Ivoire

305. Réseau Equitas (DRC)

306. Rights and Rice Foundation (Liberia)

307. Rohingya Justice Initiative

308. Room to Heal

309. SACCORD (Zambia)

310. Safe Island for Women and Children (Tanzania)

311. Sam Organization for Rights and Development (Yemen)

312. SAHRiNGON Tanzania Chapter

313. Save life community initiative in Taraba SLICOM-I (Nigeria)

314. Save the Mother and Children of Central Tanzania

315. Sentinel Project (Canada)

316. Servicio Paz y Justicia Paragua

317. Seville University (Spain)

318. Shevolution

319. Sima Community Based Organization (Kenya)

320. Solo Sandeng Foundation (The Gambia)

321. Somali Human Rights Association

322. SOS – TB 

323. South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network

324. South Sudan Youth Peace and Development Organization

325. Southern African Litigation Centre

     

326. Stop Crimes Against Humanity

327. STRALI (Italy)

328. Strategic Advocacy for Human Rights (Global)

329. Strategic Litigation Project (US)

330. Students for Global Democracy Uganda

331. Synergie des femmes pour les victimes des violences sexuelles (DRC)

332. Synergie Ukingo Wet (DRC)

333. Syria Justice and Accountability Centre

334. Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression

335. The Syrian Legal Development Programme

336. Tanzania Centre For Economic and Social Rights

337. Tanzania Community Health Information and Support

338. Tanzania GCAP Coalition

339. Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition

340. Taraba Advocacy and Rehabilitation Foundation (Nigeria)

341. Tigrians Canadian Immigration Association

342. Transitional Justice Working Group (South Korea)

343. TRIAL International

344. Tribune Azad Iran laïque

345. Trios Human Development Foundation (Nigeria)

346. Tunisian Human Rights League

347. Union des Amis Socio Culturels d’Action en Developpement

348. United Nations Association of Sweden

349. Universal Foundation On Good Governance And Human Rights (Cameroon)

350. University of Nottingham Law School

351. Visionary Ethics Foundation (Costa Rica)

352. Voix d’eve (Tunisia)

353. The West African Transitional Justice Centre

354. Udisha (India)

355. Uganda Peace Foundation

356. UN Association of South Sudan

357. Unitarian Universalist Service Committee

358. United States International Council on Disabilities

359. United Justice

360. University of Chicago Law School Global Human Rights Clinic

361. University of San Francisco Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic

362. Upendo Care Organization (Kenya)

363. Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights

364. Vision Congo ONGD

365. La Voix de l’enfant (Tchad)

366. La Voix des Sans Voix pour les Droits de l’homme (DRC)

367. Volunteer for Youth in Health and Development  

368. War Crimes Research Office, American University

369. Washington Center for Justice

370. Wayamo Foundation (Germany)

371. We are NOT Weapons of War

372. Weichel & Associates

373. West African Human Rights Defenders Network

374. The West African Transitional Justice Center (Nigeria)

375. Winam Chanua Dada CBO (CHADALA) (Kenya)

376. Women Advocates Research and Documentation Center (Nigeria)

377. Women & Children in Support of Community Development Initiate (Nigeria)

378. Women Counselling Initiative (Nigeria)

379. Women for Afghan Women

380. Women for Human Rights (Nepal)

381. Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition

382. Women for Permanent Peace and Justice

383. Women’s Action Network Sri Lanka

384. Women’s Association for Women and Victims’ Empowerment (The Gambia)

385. Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (Philippines)

386. Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice

387. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, U.K. Section

388. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section

389. Women’s Link Worldwide

390. Women’s Organization for Transitional Justice (Türkiye)

391. Women’s Regional Network (Pakistan, India, Afghanistan)

392. World Federalist Movement – Canada

393. World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy (Czech Republic)

394. World Future Council – Institute for Global Policy (International)

395. World Hazara Council USA

396. Women’s League of Burma

397. Women’s Peace Network

398. World Organisation against Torture

399. World Without Genocide

400. Yazda

401. Yelef Initiative (The Gambia)

402. Yemen Red Crescent

403. Zoulgouta Foundation (Cameroon)

Individuals:

404. Asli Abbasi, Ph.D., Human Rights Researcher and Activist, Iran

405. Hirad Abtahi, Chef de Cabinet of the Presidency to the International Criminal Court

406. Grace Acan, SEMA/Women’s Advocacy Network

407. Professor William Aceves, California Western School of Law

408. Hashem Ahmadian

409. Zubaida Akbar, Woman Human Rights Defender

410. Dr. Widad Akreyi, International Atrocity Expert and Human Rights Leader

411. Mohamed Al Shami, President, Alliance Internationale pour la Défense des droits et des libertés

412. Maya Alrahabi, Executive Director, Musawa

413. Riad Alakar

414. Alfadil Alnor, Human Rights Activist

415. Professor Dr. Kai Ambos, Georg August Universität Göttingen

416. Alejandra Bernardo Andrés, Senior Gender Advisor, Morocco

417. Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin KC (Hons), The Queen’s University of Belfast/Minnesota Law School

418. Peter Archer, Ireland

419. Rayhan Asat, Human Rights Lawyer

420. Sareta Ash, Senior Gender Expert

421. Professor Sahar Aziz, Rutgers University Law School

422. Abdul Azizi

423. Professor Tae-Ung Baik, University of Hawaii at Manoa

424. Anastasia Banda, Women’s Rights Activist, Zambia

425. Professor John Q. Barrett, St. John’s University

426. Professor Karima Bennoune, University of Michigan Law School

427. John Berger, Senior Fellow, Center on National Security, Fordham University

428. Professor Mark S. Berlin, Marquette University

429. Jutta F. Bertram-Nothnagel, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, Vice President

430. Zurab Bezhanishvili, President, International Community for Georgia Development and the Progress

431. Judge Gilbert Bitti, Kosovo Specialist Chambers

432. Professor Marco Bocchese, Webster Vienna Private University

433. Professor Michael Bohlander, Durham University

434. Elizabeth Pérez Botí

435. Jules Braet, Belgium

436. Professor Mike Brand, Atrocities Prevention Advocate

437. Elizabeth Broadbent, Member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

438. Reed Brody, Former Director of UN Missions – El Salvador and DRC

     

439. Lord Dustin Bryce, International Legal Scholar and Human Rights Defender

440. Todd Buchwald, Member, United Nations Committee Against Torture

441. Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders

442. Professor David Donat Cattin, New York University

443. Professor Andrea Caligiuri, University of Macerata

444. Professor Nelson Camilo Sanchez, University of Virginia School of Law

445. Quianna Canada, Human Rights Defender

446. Dr. Mónica Castillejos-Aragón, UC Berkeley Law

447. Eleni Chaitidou, Senior Legal Officer, Kosovo Specialist Chambers

448. Professor Rita Chemaly, Political Sciences, Lebanon

449. Dr. Lecturer Giovanni Chiarini, University of Huddersfield

450. In-Jin Chung, Barun Law

451. Professor Roger S. Clark, Rutgers Law School

452. Charles Clements, Former President of Physicians for Human Rights

453. Matteo Colorio, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies

454. Ambassador Hans Corell

455. Mazen Darwish, Syrian lawyer and Human Rights Defender

     

456. Lady Xylie Desiree, International Legal Scholar and Human Rights Defender

457. Jens Dieckmann, International Lawyer

458. Dr. Viviane Dittrich, Deputy Director, International Nuremberg Principles Academy

459. Carlos Villán Durán, Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos

460. Professor Terje Einarsen, University of Bergen

461. Enie Valery Elive, Greening Forward

462. Dr. Ingrid Elliot, Bahamas

463. Dr. Mark Ellis, International Bar Association, Executive Director

464. Jenny Engledow, Member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom

465. Professor José Elías Esteve, University of Valencia

466. Professor Hon. Gareth Evans, Australian National University

467. Edward Lyonga Ewule, International Legal Scholar and Human Rights Defender

468. Professor Aaron Fellmeth, ABILA International Human Rights Committee, Co-Chair

469. Daoud Daoud, CEO, SALAM

470. Professor Stephanie Farrior

471. Dr. Carlos René Fernández Pérez, Guatemala

472. Roisin Flynn

473. Bhavani Fonseka, Centre for Policy Alternatives

474. Quazi Omar Foysal, American International University, Bangladesh

475. Ingrid Burke Friedman, JURIST Legal News

476. Anne Gamurorwa, Communication for Development Foundation Uganda

477. Professor Sévane Garibian, Université de Genève

478. Professor Hannah R. Garry, UCLA Law Promise Institute for Human Rights

479. Paul Garthe, Portugal

480. Joseph Gimba Ph. D, Center for Peace Education and Community Development, Nigeria

481. Justice Richard Goldstone

482. Professor Gregory S. Gordon, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

483. Michael S. Greco, Former President of American Bar Association

484. Dr. Rosemary Grey, University of Sydney

485. Dr. Leena Grover, Tilburg University

486. Elida Guerra, Human Rights Lawyer

487. Professor Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall Law School

488. Khaliqyar Haidary, Human Rights Defender

489. Christopher “Kip” Hale, Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine, Georgetown Law’s International Criminal Justice Initiative

490. Nicholas Haley

491. Professor Lindsay M. Harris

492. Professor Steven Heydemann, Smith College

493. Professor Yasushi Higashizawa, Meijigakuin University

494. Christina Hioureas, Partner, Foley Hoag LLP

495. Esther Hoole, Activist, Sri Lanka

496. Abigail Edem Hunu, Ghana

497. Deena R. Hurwitz, Senior Fellow, Northeastern University School of Law

498. Shirin Ibadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

499. Dr. Jens Iverson, Leiden University

500. Junemarie Justus, Founder and CEO, Acorn Project

501. Martina M. Kabisama

502. Sayedul Karim, Founder and President, Rohingya Justice Initiative

503. Professor Paul Kang, Korea University School of Law

504. Sarah Kihika Kasande, Human Rights Lawyer, Uganda

505. Professor Patrick J. Keenan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

506. Professor Michael J. Kelly, Creighton University

507. Professor Gerhard Kemp, UWE Bristol Law School

508. Dr. Professor Mark Kersten, University of the Fraser Valley

509. Professor Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

510. John Eugen Kinabo, Tanzania

511. Dr. Professor Mark Klamberg, Stockholm University

512. Dunia Koomson, Zimbabwe

513. Dr. Professor Claus Kreß, University of Cologne

514. Judge O-Gon Kwon, former Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

515. Maryam Adamu Lanko, Narrow the Gap Child Advocacy Initiative, and SELL Foundation Nigeria

516. Professor Stephen Legomsky, Washington University School of Law

517. Taceo Lenfant

518. Professor David Luban, Georgetown University Law Center

519. Erin Lyons, Chief of Content, Peacekeeping NGO

520. Professor Kathleen M. Maloney, Lewis & Clark Law School

521. Professor Tomás K. Manguel, Universidad de Buenos Aires and Universidad de Palermo

522. Professor Stewart Manley, Malaysia

523. Professor Maria Chiara Marullo, Universitat Jaume

524. Tarcisco Dal Maso

525. Dr. Anja Matwijkiw, Indiana University Northwest

526. Martin Mavenjina

527. Metra Mehran

528. Professor Juan Mendez, American University

529. Dr. Abdul Aziz Meslat

530. Professor Bonita Meyersfeld, Wits School of Law

531. Professor Saira Mohamed, UC Berkeley School of Law

532. Sadiq Mohammed

533. Lucilene Morandi, Gender and Economy Research Center, Brazil

534. Muhammad Sharif Muhammad, Founder and President, Hitma Development Organization

535. Professor Karen Musalo, UC Law, San Francisco

536. Dr. Lahbib Naaimi, Law for Palestine (Morocco)

537. Dr. Eva-Maria Nag, Global Policy Journal

538. Yalda Naiemy, Save the Children International, Afghanistan

539. Professor (ret.) Abdul Hameed Nayyar, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad

540. Joshua Ndahiro

541. Patricia Ndhlovu, Zambia

542. Stella Ndirangu, International Criminal Law Expert

543. Nancy J. Newman, International Action for Gender Equity & Law, Founder

544. Ms. Khin Ohmar, Burmese Activist and Human Rights Practitioner

545. Tschika McBean Okosi, US & Guyana

546. Mr. Lawrence Osong, Nigeria

547. Professor Oyeronke Olademo, University of Ilorin, Nigeria

548. Professor Valerie Oosterveld, University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law

549. Linda Osman, Syrian Legalist and Human Rights Activist

550. Professor Dr. Milton Owuor, Director & Chair, Center for International Criminal Justice Africa

551. Professor Anjli Parrin, University of Chicago Law School, Global Human Rights Clinic

552. Laura Fuentes Pavez, Human Rights Lawyer

553. Nizam Peerwani, M.D., Forensic Pathologist and Human Rights Activist, Physicians for Human Rights

554. Carmelo Faleh Pérez, Asociación Española para el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos

555. C.J. Polychroniou, Journalist and former Academic

556. Kamala Poudel, Program Officer, KOSHISH Nepal

557. Dr. Joseph Powderly, Leiden University

558. ChanPhosda Prak, Gender and Development for Cambodia

559. Tania Principe, Nobel Women’s Initiative

560. Ehsan Qaane, Co-Founder, Afghanistan Transitional Justice Coordination Group

561. Teresa Quadt, Germany

562. James Selasi Quarshie, Amnesty International – Ghana Section

563. Klaus U. Rackwitz, International Law Expert

564. Akila Radhakrishnan, Strategic Legal Adviser, Gender Justice, Atlantic Council and President, Global Justice Center (2018–2023)

565. Dr. Claire Raissian, University College Cork

566. Stephen Rapp, Former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice (2009–2015)

567. Professor Darryl Robinson, Queen’s University Faculty of Law

568. Rev. Dr. Lisa D. Robinson

569. Professor Naomi Roht-Arriaza, University of California Law, San Francisco

570. Professor Gabor Rona, Cardozo Law School

571. Erin Farrell Rosenberg, University of Cincinnati College of Law

572. Indira Rosenthal, Gender expert

573. Carlotta Rossato, University of Padua, Human Rights Centre

574. Professor Brad Roth, Wayne State University

575. Kenneth Roth, Former Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

576. Carole Roushdy, Egypt

577. Professor Susana SáCouto, American University Washington College of Law

578. Professor Leila Nadya Sadat, Washington University School of Law

579. Dr. Human Saeed, University of Leuven

580. Professor Phillipe Sands, University College London

581. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director, Center for Policy Alternatives (Sri Lanka)

582. Christine Savino, Taiwan

583. Professor William Schabas, Middlesex University

584. David J. Scheffer, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues (1997–2001)

585. Judge (ret). Wolfgang Schomburg, Former Judge of ICTY and ICTR

586. Fred Sekindi

587. Professor Patricia Viseur Sellers, University of OxfordDr. Livingstone Sewanya, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative

588. Joseph Severe, UNASCAD – Haiti

589. Tarazi Mohammed Sheikh, Brac University

590. Anabella Sibrián, Human Rights Defender

591. Shenali De Silva, Human Rights Lawyer

592. Professor David Sloss, Santa Clara University School of Law

593. Dr. Sheetal Soni, University of Kwazulu – Natal South Africa

594. Professor Milena Sterio, Cleveland State University College of Law

595. Léa-Rose Stoian, Legal Advisor in Criminal Justice and Criminology

596. Professor Lori Sudderth, Quinnipiac University

597. Jeanne Sulzer, Impact Litigation

598. Dr. Sheena Swemmer, University of Witwatersrand

599. Sal Taal, Former President, Gambian Bar Association

600. Ellen Thomas, Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future, Director

601. Tony Tracy, Ireland

602. Professor Jennifer Trahan, New York University

603. Dr. Victor Tsilonis, Chairman, Intellectum Scientific Society

604. Professor Viacheslav Tuliakov, National Univeristy Odessa Law Academy (Ukraine)

605. Dr. Anne-Marie Tupuola-Plunkett, Independent Scholar and International Consultant

606. Dr. Estrella del Valle Calzada, University of Valencia

607. Professor Catherine Van De Heyning, University of Antwerp

608. Judge Christine Van De Wyngaert, Kosovo Specialist Chambers

609. Professor Elisabeth Ward, DePaul University College of Law

610. Mohamed Abdikarem Warsame, Director, Ismail Mire Foundation (Somalia)

611. Peter Weiss

612. Professor Liz Wickeri, Fordham University Law School

613. Jody Williams, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate

614. Hashim Yussif, Progressive Demoncrats Association, Ghana

615. Assistant Professor Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Zakaria

616. Professor Francisco Javier Zamora Cabot, Universitat Jaume

617. Parisa Zangeneh, Ph.D. Student, National University of Ireland

618. Ali Zeer, Syrian Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
     
     Updated to reflect additional signatures on 10/03/2024.

FAQs

News & Updates

Resources

Get Involved

Share

Sign To Demand Treaty

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

Why Urgent Action is Needed for a Crimes Against Humanity Treaty

Sign Demand For A Treaty

Sign here: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/cahtreaty/

Goitom, a 42-year-old ethnic Tigrayan farmer, living in that northern region of Ethiopia, watched helplessly when, on January 17, 2021, Amhara Special Forces – a brutal paramilitary group – beat up and detained Tigrayan men in his town.

As he told Human Rights Watch researchers, “Our numbers were decreasing by the day. After the Tekeze incident [a massacre of 60 Tigrayan men] happened, Tigrayans left in big numbers. There was nothing to live for. We were not part of the town; it was taken over by other people. We were not allowed to live.”

A 74-year old survivor of the Tekere River killings described it to Human Rights Watch. “When they shot at us, I fell first and then I saw also when the others in front of me were shot and fell. And the people behind me fell on me and covered me ….” After that, he heard the para-military troops say, “‘The Tigrayans don’t die easily, shoot again.’”

These acts and others committed against Tigrayans were crimes against humanity. These are acts of murder, rape, torture, apartheid, deportation and persecution committed as a part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population following from a state or organizational policy. Along with genocide and war crimes, they are the most serious international crimes.

These first-hand descriptions are similar to accounts that witnesses and victims have conveyed to investigators in Ukraine, southern Israel, Gaza and Sudan as crimes against humanity proliferate globally.  And before these more recent scenes of devastation unfolded, civilians in Syria, Iraq, Myanmar and Afghanistan endured—and continue to endure—comparable assaults.

Yet, unlike for genocide and war crimes there is no specific international treaty to prevent and punish crimes against humanity. This leaves a stark gap in international law protections for those all-too-often at risk.

In 2022, nearly a majority of UN Member States—north and south—moved to close the gap with the Draft Articles as the essential starting point in actual negotiations. Since then, there have been two special sessions for “discussion” in 2023 and 2024 at the General Assembly’s legal committee—its Sixth Committee—plus several yearly debates and written submissions of positions. This effort is heading to a climactic showdown in the fall.

The Sixth Committee is mandated to make a decision, on whether to move these draft provisions forward to negotiations or, in the alternative, consign them to the oblivion of endless rounds of discussion. With its potential protective impact for civilians at risk, this next step is the most significant decision on international law-making the UN will make this year.    

A treaty would also define the legal obligations of treaty member states to cooperate with one another. This would include extraditing suspects to those member states that are prepared to try them fairly.  This would extend justice’s reach where other courts like the International Criminal Court are not able to act.

At UN headquarters, the drive to start negotiations is being led by Mexico and The Gambia. These two have recently circulated a draft resolution to all UN member states calling for negotiations to begin and end in 2026.

The number of states willing to co-sponsor this text  will be a measure of the breadth and depth of support to move forward.

In 2022, 86 member states signed on as co-sponsors. These states represented all regions of the world—Africa, the Americas, Europe and North America, the Middle East, and Asia.

This year the numbers and regional diversity of supportive states will be especially important. 

At a time of intensifying geo-political divisions that are clearly manifest in the meeting rooms of the UN, it’s hardly surprising that there is deeply entrenched opposition towards a treaty on crimes against humanity.

There is a small group bound by ideology and self-interest—the Russian Federation, the Peoples Republic of China, Iran, Cuba, DPRK, Eritrea—that are adamantly against any headway.

Seeking some veneer of legitimacy, the group has anointed itself “the Friends of the UN Charter.” These “Friends” deny that there is a missing pillar of international law due to the absence of a crimes against humanity treaty.

The actual alignment of forces was on clear display at the last “discussion” session in April 2024. There, states made 51 separate statements favoring moving to negotiations. This number includes remarks by groups of states. Some were larger groups, like the European Union and the states of the Americas region, while some were smaller, like the Portuguese-speaking nations. At that same session, six states took the floor to oppose going to negotiations. 

To predict what will happen at the Sixth Committee this Fall, one could look to the sequence of events two years ago.

In 2022, after denouncing the effort to start negotiations, some of the “Friends” returned to bargain for—and obtain—a few concessions. This led to a “consensus” agreement supported by all member states that propelled a General Assembly Resolution mandating two years of “discussion” and a final decision on next steps in Fall 2024.

Among UN member states, there is a large group that have yet to take a position on next steps for the Draft Articles and a large segment of them need to voice their support for negotiations. Many of these states have had direct experience with these crimes. They have a great deal to add in creating a treaty that will provide meaningful protections for their populations.

At the same time, the terrain is different than it was two years ago.

The geo-political divisions shaping today’s international landscape are more intense than in 2022.

This tension spills over onto nearly every issue at UN Headquarters. 

STAKES ARE HIGH

In addition, the stakes are higher than they were two years ago: the decision at hand is to begin negotiations. So no matter how many states want to start negotiations, it’s entirely possible that some of the “Friends” will not agree to a consensus to begin negotiations. 

Significantly, unlike other General Assembly committees, the Sixth Committee over the years has taken its decisions by “consensus.”

The UN Charter and rules do not require this.

There are various reasons that states, large and small, cite to justify this peculiar method of multilateral decision-making and the resulting paralysis it has engendered.

The rationale for breaking with the tradition of consensus is rooted in the serious consequences for those at greatest risk of these crimes.

Given the devastation that has scarred countless civilians, a crimes against humanity treaty will offer future victims a means of redress. In the face of the growing number of conflict or unstable country situations, that have been exacerbated by sharpening geopolitical divisions, beginning negotiations will send a powerful signal.

On an increasingly fractured global landscape, the decision to negotiate would demonstrate that the protections of international law are expanding, not withering. That would be a powerful and greatly positive message to emanate from the United Nations this Fall.

Written 18.09.24 Guest post by: Richard Dicker was the longtime international justice director and is now a senior legal adviser for advocacy at Human Rights Watch. He teaches courses on international criminal courts at Columbia Law School.

Opportunity For Generational Change

The current system has failed us. It's time for a paradigm shift in how we address global atrocities, protect human rights, and prevent the misuse of emerging technologies. A treaty must be between States and hold UN itself to account!

Subscribe now

Share

Sign Demand For A Treaty

Sign here: https://www.noticeanddemand.org/cahtreaty/

Learn More About The Treaty

Learn More: Stopcrimesagainsthumanity.org

IOJ is 100% non profit, deeply involved with influencing the countries by using private diplomacy (and legal cases), which is a full time job, and we rely on the generous support of people like you to ensure this work continues! Together we will clean things up and create a better world! Thank you to all of our supporters, we cannot do this work without you - and we appreciate you being on team IOJ.

Donate Stop Crimes Against Humanity

Leave a comment

This Is The Great Reset Of Rule of Law

Things simply cannot stay the same.

… “we now have four genocide cases pending before the International Court of Justice.

This is an unprecedented situation.

They are joined by other cases dealing with human rights, both contentious cases and two advisory opinions that are also pending before the International Court of Justice dealing with other human rights issues.”

… So taken as a whole, we have close to 50 states that have intervened directly in these proceedings. And that's not counting all of the states who are supporting the proceedings from the organization of the Islamic conference.

And I don't think this has ever before happened in international law.

And I think as a general proposition, It shows a new willingness of states to litigate human rights issues at the multilateral level in a judicial environment, and driven, I think, probably by a degree of frustration with where these issues have been settled in the past, which is in the political organs of bodies like the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, and the Security Council, where, of course, double standards are the rule, where we have states that will say one thing one day and another the other day because it suits their political agendas.

This morning we posted about the presumed governmental depopulation based murder of our co-founder Lady Xylie’s parents. All we can say is the topic of crimes against humanity and genocide are close to our hearts and we are working on it.

This lecture below is really bad ass and teaches even the wisest scholars more than you may ever want to know on the history of Nuremberg Code, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity laws as they currently stand and a they are currently evolving.

Long Post, But Bad Ass & Worth Reading In Full - or listen on Youtube:

We also added a few “shorts” for you to watch some key excerpts.

All in all, the takeaway should be that there is hope that the international community is moving toward a strengthened international order and legal system to be able to finally deal with these heinous crimes.

NOTICE: There Are Currently Four Genocide Cases Pending, With An Unprecedented 50 Interventions

International Law Moves From Political Force To JUDICIAL FORCE - Tides Of Change Coming?

Such a fascinating an informative lecture, this is well worth a read or listen for any history or legal researcher. MUST SHARE for any one interested in this obscure topic.

It’s so good we even had to take notes. - IOJ

Share

Paid subscriber/donors make everything happen! To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber or donate.

Pledge Support

Genocide - The Crime of Crimes

In this enlightening lecture, Professor William Chabas discusses the evolving landscape of genocide law, the historical context of the Genocide Convention, and the current cases pending before the International Court of Justice.

He shares his personal journey into the field of genocide law, emphasizing the importance of intent in legal definitions and the challenges faced in prosecuting genocide. The conversation also highlights the role of states in addressing human rights issues through litigation and the significance of Brazil's potential intervention in ongoing cases.

takeaways

• The role of states in litigating human rights issues is increasing.

• The crime of genocide is evolving in international law.

• The International Court of Justice is becoming a key player in human rights litigation.

• Intent to destroy is a critical element in proving genocide & the challenges of proving genocidal intent complicate prosecutions.

• Brazil's potential intervention in international cases could be significant.

• The current geopolitical climate influences the prosecution of genocide.

This Is A Critical Lecture - Packed With Little Known Info On Genocide Laws

Video transcribed below:

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Genocide and International Law

03:20 Current Landscape of Genocide Cases

12:02 Personal Journey into Genocide Law

17:57 Historical Context of Genocide Law

25:44 The Genocide Convention: Scope and Challenges

35:33 Analysis of Current Genocide Cases

51:25 Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions

INTRODUCTION TO PROF CHABAS

(Can skip - but has his credentials which are pretty bad ass - a hero to IOJ)

Muito bom dia a todos. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure and an honor for us today to have Professor William Chabas lecturing on genocide, the crime of crimes. When we invited Professor Chabas, and he was kind enough to accept our invitation, Professor Chabas mentioned that it was the first time he had the opportunity of working with USP, with the University of Sao Paulo. We are very glad that you accepted our invitation and this may be the first of other initiatives we can work together on.

And this initiative, the Permanent Forum on Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity of the University of Sao Paulo, is an initiative of three units of the university. The Professor Alain Plaménche from Arab History in the Philosophy and Human Sciences Faculty, Professor Arthur Capella from the Institute of International Relations of WUSP, myself from the Public International Law in the of University of São Paulo Law School and Professor Filipe Alamino from FADISP. This is an important end. We were also joined by the Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of São Paulo. So we have an initiative that is joining three and plus one, four units of the university.

Professor Chabas is Professor of International Law at Middlesex University, London, Emeritus Professor at Leiden University and the University of Galway, and distinguished visiting faculty at the University of Paris School of International Affairs, Sciences Po. A third edition of his book, Genocide in International Law, is to be published in late 2024. Other recent publications include the International Legal Orders, COLO Line, and the Customary International Law of Human Rights.

Professor Chabas is an officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Royal Irish Academy. In 2014, he served as chairman of the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Gaza conflict.

LESSON BY PROF CHABAS BELOW:

We have the opportunity of listening today to the most important authority on the matter of genocide and international law. Professor Chabas, with our thanks and our honored compliments, you have the floor, please.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to deliver this talk. It's a subject that continues to evolve, one of great interest and one that I'm continuing to follow. I learned from my publisher that actually the third edition of my book will be delayed, perhaps a few months. So I'm expecting to see it early in February, but it couldn't come at a more timely moment.

It's a revision of a text that was last revised more than 15 years ago and the landscape of the crime of genocide has developed immensely in that period.

I've taken the quote, times of perplexity and tumult from the opinion of Judge Al -Khwasani in the recent decision in the genocide case filed by Nicaragua against Germany.

It seemed a very eloquent way of talking about what is an extremely volatile and dynamic period in public international law generally, but also in terms of the law of genocide, where we now have four genocide cases pending before the International Court of Justice. This is an unprecedented situation. They are joined by other cases dealing with human rights, both contentious cases and two advisory opinions that are also pending before the International Court of Justice dealing with other human rights issues.

UN & the evolution of Human Rights Courts

I say that many, many years ago when the United Nations was first beginning, there was talk of setting up a human rights court within the United Nations. And this has never happened despite various attempts to revive the idea and the strange situation where we have very successful human rights courts at the regional level, the Inter -American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, the African Court of Human People's Rights.

But I have the impression that in the last few years, the International Court of Justice has now taken over that mantle as the global court of human rights with all of this litigation. And as I say, at the core, at the heart of it, are these four cases.

So let me very briefly just describe what's so extraordinary about them.

The first case was filed not quite four years ago by the Gambia versus Myanmar. This is a case in which the Gambia is not an injured state in any respect, but where the Gambia has simply taken on its perceived duty as a member of the world community to litigate the issue of genocide with another state. And in that initiative, it has been supported. It was in effect mandated to do this by the organization of the Islamic Conference, which has 57 member states.

Gambia’s heroic move - Duty to Protect!

• Other countries followed their lead! Someone has to take the first steps! - IOJ

But very recently, within the last 10 months, there have been interventions in the proceedings. So six Western states, Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Denmark filed a joint intervention in the case under Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

And shortly afterwards, the Maldives also filed an intervention.

The second case, Ukraine versus Russia, filed very shortly after the Russian invasion at the end of February of 2022. And there have been in that case, 33 interventions essentially by Western states in the proceedings.

Then maybe the most famous of them all, the case filed by South Africa against Israel at the end of December of 2023. And there we have interventions by Nicaragua, Colombia, Libya, Mexico, Egypt, Ireland, Spain, Palestine, Libya, Chile, and more are promised.

And it's interesting to see the global reach, including several states in the Western hemisphere who have either intervened or have pledged to do so.

And then finally, the case filed by Nicaragua against Germany. But this case concerns Germany's failure to prevent genocide in Gaza and Germany's support and complicity alleged by Nicaragua in the conflict in Gaza.

So taken as a whole, we have close to 50 states that have intervened directly in these proceedings. And that's not counting all of the states who are supporting the proceedings from the organization of the Islamic conference. And I don't think this has ever before happened in international law.

And I think as a general proposition, It shows a new willingness of states to litigate human rights issues at the multilateral level in a judicial environment, and driven, I think, probably by a degree of frustration with where these issues have been settled in the past, which is in the political organs of bodies like the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, and the Security Council, where, of course, double standards are the rule, where we have states that will say one thing one day and another the other day because it suits their political agendas.

It's harder to do this in a judicial environment. It's not as if the judicial environment is immune to double standards, but it's harder to say different things one day and the next when you put them down in writing.

Share

Subscribe now

Pledge Support

And just to give you an example of this, in the case of Gambia versus Myanmar, the six Western countries filed an intervention arguing for a broad approach to the definition of genocide.

They said that it's too hard to prove genocide, they cited Judge Kansaldo Trindade, who in the 2015 case of Croatia versus Serbia, argued for a more relaxed approach to proving genocidal intent.

And they said that genocidal intent would be manifested in things like victimization of children in the conflict and forced displacement within the borders of a country during a conflict.

And they could not have anticipated when they filed this joint intervention that barely weeks later, South Africa would file an application against Israel where the very arguments that those states were making in favor of the Gambia against Myanmar would provide support and assistance to South Africa in its case against Israel, which cannot have been their desire or their intention.

The Man Who Invented The Word Genocide - Raphael Lemkin

This is a picture of the man who invented the word genocide, Raphael Lemkin. He was himself a refugee from Europe, a Jew born in what is now Belarus, I think.

He went to university in Lviv in what is now Ukraine, and then fled, went to the United States and kind of reinvented himself.

He was a lawyer in Poland before the war. He became an academic, did a little teaching at American universities, and then he became an activist. And he spent the rest of his life from 1944 when he invented the word genocide until his death, campaigning for the adoption and then the ratification and entry into force of the Genocide Convention.

His role is an important one. He's an extraordinary individual, but it's important to understand that his vision of genocide does not correspond entirely to what was finally adopted as a matter of international law. And the international law, of course, was the creation of states to understand the notion of genocide, at least originally.

and its recognition as a legal concept, we have to go first to Nuremberg.

The Nuremberg judgment dealt with what we today think of as the genocide committed by the Nazi regime, but it did this only in a partial way.

The Gaps & Limits of Nuremberg Code

It did this in a partial way because the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, the legal framework that was used in the great trial, which took place in 1945 and until the 1st of October 1946, restricted the acts of persecution, the atrocities that were committed against Jews and against other minorities in Nazi Germany, and then subsequently in the occupied territories.

The acts committed in Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of the war were excluded from the scope of the trial. The trial insisted that atrocity crimes, it used the term there also for the first time, crimes against humanity had to have a connection, we call it a nexus, had to have a nexus with the armed conflict.

That was the notion of crimes against humanity that was set out in the charter of the tribunal and that was confirmed in the judgment that was issued at the end of September and the beginning of October 1946.

Lemkin wasn't in Nuremberg when the judgment was issued, although others have said he was there. But we think now we seem to be pretty confident that he was in the American hospital in Noi in a or a Parisian suburb when he learned of the judgment, he rushed back to the United States where the General Assembly of the United Nations was about to open the second phase of its first session in New York. And he immediately started campaigning for the General Assembly to adopt a resolution on issue of genocide.

So here you can see on the screen from the summary records of the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly on the 22nd of November 1946, the Cuban ambassador rose to propose a resolution. He did it on behalf of Panama and India. We believe that the speech he delivered was actually written by Raphael Lemkin.

Lemkin had managed to recruit Panama, India and Cuba to support the resolution. And when he did this, the delegate from Cuba, Ernesto De Higo, said that at the Nuremberg trials, he expressly said, this is to correct a shortcoming in the Nuremberg trials, to fill a gap in the law that had been left by the Nuremberg trials, which was the possibility of atrocities like genocide being committed in time of peace.

I put up on the screen now the excerpt from the charter of the International Military Tribunal adopted on the 8th of August, 1945. That explains this. And you can see that crimes against humanity are acts committed, it says, before or during the war, but in the connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

And any crime within the jurisdiction of the tribunal meant a connection with either war crimes, or crimes against peace. This was the connection that Nuremberg imposed on atrocity crimes like crimes against humanity, including the acts that today we would consider as genocide. So the question arises, why did this happen?

This is an excerpt from the minutes of the London conference where the charter of the Nuremberg tribunal was adopted.

Robert Jackson, who was the American judge sent by president Truman to represent the United States at the conference.

He said, and you can see it on the screen, we have some regrettable circumstances in our own country in which minorities are unfairly treated. And we think it is justifiable that we interfere or attempt to begin to bring retribution to individuals or to states only because the concentration camps and the deportations were in pursuance of a common plan or enterprise.

And you can see in the final line, he says, we see no other basis on which we are justified in reaching the atrocities which were committed inside Germany under German law or even in violation of German law by authorities of the German state.

And there you have it in a nutshell because the reason why Robert Jackson didn't want to recognize crimes against humanity in peacetime, because he was concerned that it would suggest that there was a precedent whereby atrocities committed inside the United States under American law, or even in violation of American law by authorities of the state would be recognized as crimes under international law.

United States Insists On Impunity For US Based Atrocities - & Gets Impunity!

And his colleagues around the table, the representatives of the United Kingdom, of France, and of the Soviet Union appear to have been of the same opinion.

And this is why it was three countries of the global South, which was not as robust a political force in 1946 as it is today, campaigned for recognizing, for filling this gap in the law of Nuremberg. And they were able to do this through the Genocide Convention.

One final slide, the Nuremberg judgment shows how the judges at the Nuremberg trial restricted and limited the scope of the persecution of the Jews, what we today call the genocide of the Jews, restricted them to acts committed subsequent to the outbreak of the war.

This is the heart of the Genocide Convention.

The Genocide Convention was adopted in 1948 on the 9th of December by the United Nations General Assembly, a unanimous resolution.

The text of the convention begins by stating that genocide is a crime that can be committed in time of peace, as well as in time of war. That was what was so entirely unique about it. It was the first international crime recognized that could be committed in time of peace and without a link to an international armed conflict.

In some ways, it resembles the notion of crimes against humanity that was prosecuted at Nuremberg, but it's certainly narrower because there was no way in 1948 that the United States, France, Britain and the Soviet Union who had resisted the idea that peacetime atrocities could be subject to international law, there was no way that they were going to change their mind entirely.

The price for doing so was, of course, a much narrower crime, a notion of a crime that is much, much more, much more, much narrower and much more difficult to prove for a number of reasons.

First of all, there is this requirement in the preambular paragraph that it must be committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This is really the heart of the problems we have with genocide prosecutions and with cases under state responsibility before bodies like the International Court of Justice proving this intent to destroy with crimes against humanity.

We don't have to prove the intent to destroy. We don't have to prove destruction at all. Crimes Against Humanity deals with questions of persecution of a group. Crimes Against Humanity is also much broader because it not only covers a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, but a range of other groups based on such things as political opinion, gender, and so on. And it's followed then by the list of punishable acts, killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction and so on. It's rarely been very difficult to establish that one of these acts in the paragraphs in Article 2 is committed. The challenge has almost invariably been to prove that it was done so with the intent to destroy the group.

And I have seen even recently people have tried to argue that if you could prove that all five group, all five acts had been committed, that perhaps you didn't have to prove that it was done in fulfillment of the intent to destroy the group as such. But I don't believe that to be a really serious or credible interpretation.

Now, one of the features of the convention that is of great interest is the prescription on how the crime is to be prosecuted.

The convention's title is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. But really, most of the convention is about the punishment rather than the prevention.

The word prevention appears there, and it was subsequently given some flesh in, but judicially by the International Court of Justice in the 2007 case of Bosnia versus Serbia. But really the heart of the convention's provisions deal with the prosecution of the crime, the punishment of the crime in a criminal court.

The article was adopted after attempts to introduce universal jurisdiction whereby any state would be empowered to prosecute the crime regardless of where it was committed and regardless of the nationality of the offender. But these were rejected by quite strong majorities. It was not a popular idea at the time.

Using Costa Rica Universal Jurisdiction!

Share

In order to diminish perhaps the hopelessness of the idea that it would be prosecuted by the state where the act was committed, the convention also provided for an international penal tribunal to be created. One did not exist at the time in 1948. But in the companion resolution to the resolution adopted on the 9th of December 1948, containing the Genocide Convention, the General Assembly called upon the International Law Commission to study the feasibility of creating an international criminal court.

And if we're looking for the moment of conception, one could say, of today's international criminal court created by the Rome Statute, which was adopted 50 years later in 1998, it's Article VI of the Genocide Convention and the resolution adopted with it. Of course, it was a long story for that to ever come to fruition and result in the actual creation of a tribunal.

(31:35.629)

The other clause that is of great interest to us today because of these cases pending at the International Court of Justice is Article 9.

Article 9 compromissory clause for ICC

Article 9 is what we international lawyers call a compromissory clause because it recognizes the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in settling disputes relating to the Genocide Convention. The International Court of Justice is the the world court, it's the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

All members of the United Nations are also parties to the statute of the international court of justice. But that doesn't mean that they accept the jurisdiction of the international court of justice. They have to do this by making general declarations. About one third of the member states have done so or specific acceptance in particular cases.

And also they recognize it through these compromissory clauses, which figure in a number of international treaties.

And so this is, for example, in the case between South Africa and Israel, Article 9 is the basis of the court's jurisdiction, as it was in some of the earlier cases, notably the two cases that led to important judgments of the court, the one filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia, that led to a judgment in 2007. And then the subsequent case, which in some ways replicated or echoed the case between Serbia and Bosnia, which was the case Croatia filed against Serbia with the judgment issued in 2015.

And in those cases, there was a great deal of frustration because the court came to the conclusion that it could not attribute genocidal intent to Serbia, that Serbia could not be therefore found to have committed genocide against Bosnia and Herzegovina or against Croatia.

And the unfortunate part of that for the applicant states was that the court then was without jurisdiction to make any other determination.

If it's a prosecution, a criminal prosecution, of an individual at the International Criminal Court, if genocide is charged and if the court is unable to reach the conclusion that genocide was committed, it can still convict an accused person of a lesser offense, an offense where the requirements are not as demanding, particularly crimes against humanity and war crimes.

But when the jurisdiction of the court is based exclusively on the genocide convention, it has no such option. And if it decides that genocidal intent is not proven to the requisite high standard, then it can only dismiss the case. So this is the challenge that is today confronting, particularly the Gambia in the case against Myanmar and the case of South Africa against Israel.

These cases are works in progress…

Now I want to say a few words about each one of these cases because this is a work obviously in progress and there are things that are happening almost every week in one or other of the cases. Gambia versus Myanmar case was filed in late 2019 and it led almost immediately within by January of 2020 to an order for provisional measures by the court.

The provisional measures order has a relatively low requirement before the court. It's relatively easy to obtain a provisional measures order because the court's standard is quite low for giving such an order.

It probably has the consequence that the orders are not very demanding in the case of Gambia versus Myanmar, the order was very largely in order to Myanmar to not to commit genocide, which is of course very desirable. But Myanmar's simple answer to that would be we didn't commit it before and we're not going to commit it in the future. we're not allowed, we'd be in violation of the law were we to do so.

It's, I think normally in a domestic legal order, I had experienced myself for many years practicing as a lawyer, you would obtain a provisional measures order to stop someone doing something which they're legally entitled to do.

But as a general rule, those are orders to a state not to do something that it's otherwise entitled to do, such as expelling someone from its territory. So all of this is to say that it's not that challenging to obtain a provisional measures order. The legal effect of them may not be great, but the political effect of them is enormous, absolutely enormous.

And this was evident in Gambia versus Myanmar with the order that was filed in January of 2020. In that case, the case has now worked its way through an initial stage of preliminary objections.

And now the parties are finalizing their submissions. I think that this has to be completed by sometime in 2025, and then the court may order another round of written submissions.

This is possible, although it's not done in every case. So I think that we're probably looking at a hearing in the Gambia versus Myanmar case at the end of 2025 or sometime in 2026 with a judgment perhaps by the end of 2026.

And I think that that judgment will largely set the tone that will then prevail in the case of South Africa versus Israel.

Let me say more about that in a minute, but since I'm proceeding chronologically, let me just say a few words about the Ukraine versus Russia case.

Ukraine said that Russia has invaded us and they have used the prevention of genocide as a pretext or as a justification for doing so. And this is a false pretext because we haven't committed genocide.

What Ukraine was trying to do was to get an order against Russia indirectly through the genocide convention, but really one dealing with the invasion itself with the use of force. And it was successful in obtaining a provisional measures order against Russia.

As I say, this was not, as we can all, as we all know, was not effective in a practical sense, but it was politically quite effective and quite helpful to Ukraine.

But subsequently, a big part of that case has now been thrown out because at the preliminary objection stage, which resulted in a judgment at the beginning of this year, the International Court of Justice in effect said, yes, you cannot use the Genocide Convention to indirectly address an issue of an invasion or of aggression.

But they said, so we're going to stop that part of the case. They said, there's another part of the case, which is that you're saying you didn't commit genocide, and you're entitled to try and prove that.

So Ukraine finds itself now in, I think, an uncomfortable position of having to try and prove to the satisfaction of the judges that it didn't commit genocide. And the whole world knows that it didn't commit genocide. So the exercise of doing this is not really particularly helpful or useful. And Ukraine itself has set too high a standard because Ukraine itself set the set the goalposts in a way for the case, and they have said that there's no evidence that they have committed genocide, then I think that's not a straightforward thing to prove.

(41:24.501)

The third case, South Africa versus Israel. This is in many ways going to be influenced by the outcome in the Gambia versus Myanmar case to the extent that the judges of the court are prepared to adopt a more flexible and liberal approach both to the substance of the charge of genocide and to the requirements for the proof of genocide, a more liberal approach than they took in the two cases dealing with the former Yugoslavia, the one filed by Bosnia and the one filed by Croatia.

There are indications that this can happen. Some of the indications come from the many interventions by states, which is completely unprecedented. We've never had this before, but in effect, the states that are parties to the genocide convention are telling the court, this is what we think the definition of genocide is. I believe this is going to influence the court. So I think that it's quite reasonable to expect the court to revisit its approach to genocide and to adopt a more generous and liberal approach to it.

The other thing I think in the South Africa versus Israel case is that of all of the cases that have been taken before the court, Gambia versus Myanmar, the cases filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina and by Croatia, I think this is probably the strongest case.

These types of statements sometimes feature in many conflicts, but there are a lot of them in South Africa versus Israel. But they're coupled also with a clear policy of the current leaders of Israel, the Netanyahu government, which is to reject entirely a two state solution, to reject entirely the possibility of self -determination for Palestine.

And that means that they're talking about a state with borders that will go from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and as long as the Palestinians are still there, they will either be in the majority in that state or close to it. And this is something that they will not be able to. These things don't work. They don't work together. And I think all of these point to the fact that the Israeli leaders currently have to, in some way or another, get rid of the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank.

And with the borders closed as they are, where it's essentially impossible for the people of Palestine to go elsewhere, combined with this need, which is expressed in many different ways, to get rid of the people of Palestine, I think we're very much, we're in one of the most compelling cases for genocide taking place.

(45:47.745)

This will, we will have to wait to see the evidence in the case and how things play out in the, because it's a dynamic and fluid situation.

But I would think that that case probably, certainly if Gambia is successful against Myanmar, it seems impossible that South Africa will not be successful against Israel.

But even if Gambia is not successful against Myanmar, I think that South Africa has a more robust and a stronger case.

And then finally, we have this very interesting case filed by Nicaragua versus Germany, which focuses on issues like German complicity and through support for Israel and on Germany's failure to prevent genocide because of its influence over Germany.

And this is an issue that really results from the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Bosnia versus Serbia case in 2007.

In that case, the judges concluded that they could not attribute genocidal intent to Serbia. At the same time, they recognized that genocide had been committed within Bosnia and Herzegovina when the Srebrenica massacre took place in July of 1995. And in so doing, they were simply following the conclusions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. So they endorsed them, but they said, we can't blame Serbia for this. This was the work of the Bosnian Serb forces. And they said, we don't have the evidence that Serbia was in control and was directing the Bosnian Serb forces in the commission of genocide.

But they went on and essentially developed a doctrine about the prevention of genocide, where they said that Serbia, because of its relationship to the Serbs in Bosnia, its influence over them, that it had a duty to prevent genocide and that it had failed in doing so. And so there was a finding against Serbia for its failure to prevent genocide under the convention. It was really quite a radical conclusion because it was saying that that duty to prevent genocide applied outside the territory of Serbia. That Serbia was responsible for acts that it did not commit and that took place outside its own territory.

In the judgment in 2007, the judges referred to some other treaties where there's an obligation to prevent the crime. They pointed to the torture convention and to some other and counterterrorism conventions.

And so they said, so there's nothing particularly innovative about what we're proposing, but there certainly was because there's no treaty where a state has an obligation to prevent acts that take place outside of its territory, where it has an explicit obligation.

And there are obvious applications of this to the situation in Gaza, not just in Gaza, but in the whole of the occupied Palestinian territory.

And there have been attempts to take this case to court in domestic proceedings in the United States, but these are very difficult.

But it's at the root of the case filed by Nicaragua versus Germany. Germany, because of its position of influence, is in violation of the Genocide Convention for its failure to prevent genocide in Gaza. It's not alone in those circumstances.

So this final slide, think I've spoken to these points and I won't repeat it.

Let me just say in conclusion that we're in a fascinating period, more generally a fascinating period of international law with this turn towards the International Court of Justice and more generally towards judicial mechanisms to address disputes that were previously settled at the political level.

And this is taking many forms. I've spoken already a lot about Palestine. And you may know that one of the other important developments in international law is the advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice issued on the 19th of July of this year, in which it declared, of course, straightforward that the occupation of the Palestinian occupied territory is not only contrary to international law, but that it has to be brought to an end as soon as possible.

And it's my understanding that there is now an effort to have a resolution in the General Assembly adopted in the coming weeks that will call for that, that will support that and will use that.

There's a great, a lot of lot of battles going on at the judicial level.

They don't solve all of the problems, but they do change the temperature politically.

And in that way make a contribution both to preventing genocide and to promoting world peace.

And with that, I think I'm going to conclude, and we have perhaps a few minutes left. If there are any questions, I'd be very happy to try and address them.

(52:53.709)

Thank you so much, Professor Chabas. This was an illuminating lecture and it is very positive to listen to you when you mentioned that we are in an interesting period for international law and you see relevant developments in the international protection of human rights.

Most of the press comments and the general opinion tends to say that the institutions are not coping with the challenge, are not being able to handle matters properly.

Share

IOJ is raising the funds to sue for crimes against humanity and a covid reckoning. All assistance to step up & help the cause as a partner in justice is deeply appreciated.

Pledge Support

Paid subscriber/donors make everything happen!

Justice isn’t free - It takes joining together to raise the necessary Attorney fees from the community!

To support our work, consider becoming a paid subscriber or donate.

Leave a comment

ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE

Further reading on Professor Chabas and the issue of retroactivity for the die hards:

The HISTORY Of The Most Important Authority On The Matter Of Genocide and International Law: Professor Chabas

I want to say just a few words about my own interest in the subject. People often ask me, why did you, how did you get involved in this? I had finished my PhD in late 1992. It was on the issue of the death penalty. It had nothing to do with genocide. And this was not a subject to which I had given any great attention. And I found myself in January of 1993, visiting Rwanda as part of a human rights fact -finding mission, we issued a report upon the conclusion of our mission at the end of January. First, we issued a a press release that I helped to draft, and then a report where we warned of the danger of genocide in Rwanda.

And this was a controversial statement. And When challenged on it in this commission of inquiry, people turned to me and said, well, you're the guy with the PhD in international law. Tell us what it means. How do you interpret the genocide convention? And I was not in a position to give a serious, credible answer. It was something that I knew little about. I was embarrassed in a way that I wasn't able to provide a better explanation.

And so I set to work studying it and discovered then in 1993 and then later when the genocide did take place in 1994 that there had been very little academic activity devoted to the genocide convention, academic and judicial, since the 1950s. In effect, there had been no serious study of a book length. There had been a few journal articles.

But most of the writing about genocide in the Genocide Convention was outside the discipline and was the work of historians and social scientists. And so I set to work writing this book, which was finally published in 1999 and which is now about to appear in its third edition. But there's another more maybe personal explanation.

This is the name of my great aunt, Hindakomal. She was born with the surname Shabas, spelled in a different way than I spell it. I inherited the spelling from my father and my grandfather, but my grandfather's brothers and his sister wrote the name differently. Hindakomal's surname was the name of her husband.

She married in Germany in the 1920s. Well, I'll show you on the screen a very complicated family tree and I wouldn't expect you to sort it all out, but you might see it towards the bottom there that Hind Kamal, in fact, was married and then divorced from her husband in 1934 and then remarried him in 1945.

The explanation is that Hindukumul, my great aunt, was a Jewish woman living in Berlin. And in effect, she was taken into hiding and lived in Berlin through the war. There were about 1 ,000, perhaps, maybe a few more Jews who survived the war in Berlin. And there were some elsewhere in Germany, and she was one of them.

You can see I've put on the side of the screen an excerpt from the judicial file that I found in Germany where she was forced to change her name in 1938 to add the name Sarah. And this was a requirement that the Nazis imposed on all Jewish women as a form of identifying them. And she would have worn the yellow star as all Jews had to do as well at the time. So I have a personal interest obviously in this subject of genocide.

The Issue Of Retroactivity:

And one other issue which is quite often also brought is do you agree that we can have genocides committed even before the convention? So for instance, the... the Herero case before the First World War and the Armenian genocide, it would be very frustrating to say that we cannot talk about genocide because the crime was only typified in the 1948 Convention. So this is a first comment if you like to talk about it shortly, please.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for that question. Well, I don't have any difficulty at all using the term genocide, using the definition of genocide that was adopted in the 1940s to speak about historic events. It was always ambiguous whether the Genocide Convention could apply retroactively.

The general rule in international law is that there's a presumption of non -retroactivity, but some treaties do apply retroactively if the context suggests them. one might have, there was a good argument, I thought, that the convention itself could apply retroactively. But in the 2015 judgment of the International Court of Justice, they declared that that's not the case. So I think that issue was settled, but the Genocide Convention itself speaks about genocide being committed at all times in history.

Moreover, the resolution that led to the Genocide Convention, which was adopted in December of 1946 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, was a declaratory resolution. It was well understood then and still is today, that the General Assembly is not really a legislative body, but a body that it cannot create law. And that's not what it was doing in 1946. The resolution that was adopted in December of 1946 that then led two years later to the convention was declaring what the law was in December of 1946. And it said genocide is a crime.

If it was a crime on the 11th of December, 1946, then it must've been a crime on the 10th of December, 1946 as well. And on the 9th of December, 1946 and so on. So I think there's a very compelling argument that genocide was a crime under international law prior to 1946. How far back we can go is a matter of some debate, although of perhaps not much practical interest. We're not going to prosecute anybody for murdering the Herrero in 1904. We're not gonna prosecute anybody for murdering the Armenians in 1915. So it's really more of a theoretical proposition, but there's nothing wrong with using the term genocide to speak about past events.

We might also distinguish between the crime of genocide and genocide to cool. And we have examples going back to the destruction in Mitalini by the Athenians in, I don't know when, a very long time ago. Yes, thank you. And also the ethnic cleansing that Azerbaijan carried out this year against the Armenian population that they were literally thrown out of the homeland in a very short and brutal notice, leaving no option. Either you leave now or you are dead. So this is something which was quite shocking, even if we don't have the genocide featured as such, but this ethnic cleansing was very beyond what everything that could be argued as legitimate for the protection of the Azeri side. I don't know if my colleagues and co -organizers have any comments, questions. I don't want to monopolize Professor Chabas all to myself.

Well, yes, I just want to say I do have to leave very shortly. had booked one hour and I have to catch a short. Professor Paul, if I could ask a very quick question.

Please, sure. Okay, Professor Schaap as well, thank you very much for the historical approach. I'm a historian, I work with Arab and Palestinian history, so that was very, very enlightening, very interesting. Thank you very much. And a short, quick question. What would you view, possibly suggest, as a measure that Brazil as a country could do to help end the genocide in Palestine through judicial, international court of justice and so on measures. What would be the most practical and effective measure in this case, in your view?

Brazils Important Role?

Well, I assume that Brazil is not providing any, is not selling weapons or providing weapons or making a contribution in that way, which is the case. I'm coming to you from France. I'm going to the United Kingdom this evening. That's a real issue here in Europe, but I doubt that that's of any practical consequence. I would think that Brazil should intervene in the case of South Africa versus Israel. I think your president may have already made a statement to that effect that it was considering doing so or would like to do so. I think that is a very practical significance. I think that there are many, many states now that are doing this, that are intervening in different ways in this litigation. And it's important. And you don't want to be left out either.

(01:01:07.501)

Well, thank you very much for your opinion, Professor Saba, thank you very much.

Aalo, I think you have your microphone on, yeah.

Now it's open. Okay, this is, we don't want to cause any trouble for your training later today. So thank you so much again, and we hope to keep in touch and make another activity in the coming year. Maybe this would be great. So thank you so much. And this, with your permission, this, lecture was recorded and will be reachable for further listeners in the series of the Permanent Forum on Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity of the University of Sao Paulo.

So thank you so much for your contribution and hope to see you soon again. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much.

So we can now close today's session and be prepared for the next sessions in September, in October and November this year. So bye -bye to my colleague, co -organizers and to the audience today.

And Professor Schaubers, great thanks from all of us. Bye -bye.

Speaking of pandemic laws which could come into full force after ratified by a Senate: Let’s talk about poor Canada who is currently in a rush against the clock to stop their Senate from making a draconian Pandemic Bill into law.

IF you are in Canada, we made you all 3 forms to rebut the Pandemic Bill

Sign Here: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

Share

Sponsor IOJ's Coffees To Work!

The freedom movement people are currently supporting Canada to eliminate the PPR Bill from the senate, but at the same time they are promoting the United States to initiate and promulgate a Pandemic Treaty Bill in the United States Senate?

Something does not make sense here. Let’s put our thinking caps on:

THE WHO PANDEMIC TREATY IS COMING TO U.S.?

Can or WILL the US Senate block the WHO Pandemic Treaty if adopted by the end of the year or by WHA78 next May? A new Bill 1425 that just passed the House on September 11, 2024 is riding on that gamble.

A friend, supporter and reader of IoJ, let’s call him “G” was asked if he trusts Senators to vote NO on the Treaty. He replied: “Senators will be bribed, even though many have one foot in the grave…maybe their families threatened.”

IOJ finds it hard to disagree!

IOJ almost posted misinformation going around from some groups and are very glad we actually do the preparation to READ the stuff going around in order to give you our often unpopular, but honest and humble views in the spirit of truth and discernment!

---

LET’S DISSECT THE CRAZIEST BILL:

September 11, 2024, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1425, the No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act, and we are very concerned that if passed, it will ensure that the United States has the full ability to enter into the WHO pandemic agreement with the WHO on pandemic preparedness, and make it full blown law passed by the legislative branch, by first getting the constitutionally required advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. (which, to be clear, US Federal law is named as part of law of the land in many Constitutions of States)

In our opinion, the Bill is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to pass Senate soon, because it says many crazy false presumptions of viral transmissibility being purposefully hidden by the Chinese and is extremely biased. Furthermore it is written with many odd contradictory or sneaky wordings, bizarre loopholes, doublespeak and it informs the Senate precisely why they have no power over the IHR, a sole executive agreement! We will show why we say this below!

U.S. H.R. 1425, in our view, which is likely to be unpopular as usual, is a literary abomination and fantastical series of unproven presumptions, which outrageously affirms the false narrative of pandemic lies and even worse, if Senate agrees, it would give Senate powers to re-delegate US sovereign decision making to WHO in treaty form. This Bill would go so far as to allow the Senate to ratify the Pandemic Treaty into law, making WHO DG Tedros King of United States if this passes.

What would we do if the US Senate actually threw a curve ball and insanely used this new power derived from this new Bill to usher in the WHO Pandemic agreement as a treaty? Crazier things have happened when gambling on global governance structures coming into domestic law like this. US ALREADY agrees to global governance under UN & WHO, so why does anyone trust the Senate to reject this WHO pandemic treaty scheme?

Don’t worry, in typical IOJ fashion we go through it all below - at least what we see as points to take note of and worthy of showing you all in plain view!

If H.R.1425 ever passes and makes the Pandemic Treaty an instrument that is agreed by the US Senate to be ratified it could create long standing binding laws that would cede rather than strengthen sovereignty and ultimately could GIVE WHO SPURIOUS PANDEMIC GUIDANCE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING IN US LAW!… WTF?

Do we REALLY want a sovereign body like the US Senate agreeing to the ratifying of a TREATY WITH W.H.O. WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE AGREEING TO RE-DELEGATE OUR US SOVEREIGN HEALTH DECISION MAKING, BY FORCING CONFORMITY WITH THE GLOBAL AGENDAS?

Talk about the WORST thing a country could EVER do is let their Senate have the power to ratify a Treaty for pathogen sharing and profiteering. It’s a racket and growing daily, with Diplomats doing pandemic deals in the name of global health and safety. But they would never allow it, right? Are you crazy? They could easily totally allow it. We trust NO GOVERNMENT body, no Senate, NONE. Wake up!

Keep in mind that many, if not all, countries fully affirm pandemic preparedness and response measures of WHO and affirm global health governance as TOTALLY constitutional…. What you may see as unconstitutional they see as perfectly fine.

UMMMM so this is pretty freaky to ever give this much power to Senate in our view.

TO SAVE OUR SOVEREIGN NATIONS IT SEEMS YOU WOULD WANT TO FIRST NULLIFY THE IHR, THEN THE TREATY IF IT EVER PASSES… WE WOULD HOPE IT STAYED UNDER EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT - EASIER TO NULLIFY.

BIG Truth!

Below is directly from the US Congress government site and whilst it speaks of “ any convention or agreement on pandemic-related issues reached by the World Health Assembly (WHA) pursuant to a specified negotiating body”.

H.R.1425 — 118th Congress (2023-2024), the bill which passed on 9 11 because the useless eliters love numerology, makes it clear it’s ONLY specifically applied to the WHO Pandemic Treaty.

• This bill is expressly NOT applicable to the IHR or any other instrument (the title is very deceptive by saying “any pandemic agreement” but the body is strict and clear it only applies to the Pandemic Treaty negotiated by the WHO Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). ABUNDANT and ubiquitous misinformation is saying this bill could apply to IHR - NO IT CANNOT. - IOJ reality check - we READ it and are telling you, whoever says that, is flat wrong and selling hopium and wild dreams.

Let’s discuss the House of Representatives passing a bill on 9 11…

H.R. 1425, the “The No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Consent” Act

Reported to House (08/30/2024)

No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act

Short overview on Congress site: This bill [which passed House on 9 11, 2024] establishes that any convention or agreement on pandemic-related issues reached by the World Health Assembly (WHA) pursuant to a specified negotiating body shall be deemed to be a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.

Specifically, this bill applies to any international instrument negotiated by the intergovernmental negotiating body established by the WHA in December 2021 to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

Don’t believe the hype! Read YOURSELF!

The Act is about a SINGLE treaty. Yes - it is to bring ONLY the Pandemic Treaty Accord, Act, (CA+), Agreement to the Senate.

From what we can read it is clearly NOT ABOUT THE IHR AMENDMENTS WHICH MUST STILL BE PROPERLY ANNULLED before they cure in 8 months!

First, we think it’s wise to not listen to people describe dense laws and tell you to call in to request they are passed without going through the Bill line by line.

IOJ HIGHLIGHTED POINTS OF MAJOR CONCERN - DOWNLOAD & REVIEW

No Who Without Senate Act Bills 118hr1425rh

174KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Currently the IHR and Pandemic Treaty are executive agreements:

What is one way that executive agreements differ from treaties? A treaty requires approval by two thirds of the Senate; an executive agreement does not.

An executive agreement is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding. Reversing an executive agreement is so much easier than a treaty, so we are failing to see the benefit of wanting the Senate to vote into making it a treaty (hoping it would be rejected, but gambling), and possibly getting stuck with the Pandemic Accord as a Treaty that can’t be undone rather than executive agreement, which the next president or good lawsuits could override and get rid of…

Dear IOJ, WHY do you care about pandemic preparedness and response?

Well dear reader, IOJ has a big role in pandemic preparedness and response!

We are one of around 150 “interested and relevant stakeholders in pandemic preparedness and response” as recognized by the WHO INB when we spoke at the only two pandemic treaty hearings April and September 2022 to protest the very same WHO pandemic treaty that this Bill is about. Small world right? This hits right at home for us and our work.

IOJ, being very driven to prevent this exact impending Pandemic Treaty, actually are very proud to say we SKIPPED the Geneva parties at the end of May through June 1st 2024 and we WORKED OVERTIME with hardly any sleep during The World Health Organization’s World Health Assembly number 77 (WHA77) to try to stop the Pandemic Treaty in our own unique way.

IOJ does our own thing, which you need to understand was actually the only successful approach to the WHO pandemic treaty in the ENTIRE WORLD SO FAR.

We want to HUMBLY teach you all our unique multi prong approach of dissident diplomacy, so you can do the same, because this Bill 1425 that people are getting so excited about sure as FOOK ani’t saving the US republic, thats for damn sure!

In fact, as you will see, it unfortunately “proves” the very necessity of the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty. For those reasons we feel it SUCKS.

Look, we need to unite for the fight. People of Earth simply CAN’T allow the damn WHO Pandemic Treaty that will usher in pathogen sharing and non vaccine frenzy free for alls, but let’s get a grip here folks, we need a real strategy. This is a potential savior whilst ALSO laying the groundwork for a potential disaster.

(The reader)…"Well IOJ, so what’s your strategy then? Have you REALLY got room to tell me how to stop the Pandemic Treaty?”

Answer: Yes, sure, in that case, pull up a chair, this is just fricking AWESOME! We are hope personified. OPTIMISM BABY! You can’t bring us down to a place of doubt. We are POWERFUL CO-CREATORS! FAITH OF A MUSTARD SEED. MOVING HUGE MOUNTAINS!

On June 1, 2024 WHA77 when all other countries passed the consensus to extend WHO pandemic treaty negotiations Costa Rica’s Vice President sat up first after all the votes and literally quoted IoJ’s documents. Our work was quoted verbatim when Costa Rica FLAT REJECTED THE PANDEMIC TREATY. FOREVER. FIN DONE. IT’S OVER HERE. FOREVER. While ALL other countries still worry about the Pandemic Treaty we are not having it here in Costa Rica.

We did a MANDATE THE STATE campaign with serious duties laid out, risk reports and we WON.

IOJ DIRECTLY STOPPED THE PANDEMIC TREATY IN IT’S TRACKS HERE USING SERIOUS LAWS & LOVE & MAJOR TIME & PERSISTENCE

COSTA RICA REFUSES THE TREATY STILL ON THE TABLE IN ALL OTHER COUNTRIES AND DOESN’T EVEN KNOW THE DELEGATES TO GIVE US THEIR NAMES, BECAUSE THEY WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! BAD ASS.

It is Genius Or Crazy That H.R. 1425, the “The No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Consent” Act Just Passed?

IOJ - not a fan. Can anyone else see through this BS?

Dear USA - please do not be like Canada - in USA the pandemic laws are under the executive power! We cannot have the Senate or Legislative branch be empowered to usher in pandemic laws - which could override other laws. We think they would LOVE to approve pandemic Acts and laws under a democrat regime, don’t you think? Maybe any regime would or could usher them in.

It bears repeating. Do you trust ANY Senate? We don’t, especially if Democrats gain majority. Whilst the US Bill may be passing during a majority Republican Senate, and whilst 26 Governors agree to shun WHO pandemic rules, if this passes it COULD result in disastrous Acts (currently executive branch) becoming LAWS by the Legislative branch. For us who seek to NULLIFY these executive acts, we pray they NEVER become law ratified by any Senate, therefore we would never give the senate the ability to approve the USA to ratify a treaty with WHO.

Does HR 1425 Really Apply To ALL Pandemic Acts, Or Just apply to the WHO Pandemic Treaty?

A BILL H.R. 1425

To require any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly to be subject to Senate ratification.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty [SINGULAR] Without Senate Approval Act’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On May 18, 2020, President Donald Trump sent a letter to World Health Organization (referred to in this Act as ‘‘WHO’’) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Director-General’’), announcing that—

(A) United States contributions to WHO would be halted due its mismanagement of the COVID–19 outbreak [IOJ note - FALSE PRESUMPTION & BLAME] and its lack of independence from the People’s Republic of China; and

(B) the United States would withdraw from WHO if it did not commit to substantive improvements within 30 days.

(2) President Trump’s May 18 letter cited numerous instances of WHO mismanagement of the COVID–19 pandemic, including—

(A) unjustified delays informing member states about a potentially serious disease out- break in Wuhan, China; and
(B) repeated grossly inaccurate or misleading claims about the transmissibility of the virus and about the Government of China’s handling of the outbreak.

[IOJ note #1 - Above in bold and italics is the EXACT reason the International Health Regulations (IHR) was amended in 2005, and again 2024 June 1st, to force countries to cede sovereignty, bring in IHR focal points and so much more - See, the IHR was changed to bring in a duty to surveil and report infectious diseases - so this is EXACTLY why the global health pandemic SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING AND RESPONSE law is presumed to be NEEDED - we can’t stand this tell tale shill language meant to justify rather than prevent pandemic international agreements, acts, treaties - BINDING OBLIGATIONS is the best term]

Share

Subscribe now

Sponsor IOJ's Coffees To Work!

[IOJ note #1a: This is so stupid. Who want’s a bill to be agreed upon by Senate based in such BS lies that China HID the fake pandemic by lying about the nature of transmissibility? No… China told the TRUTH - Was it not China who said it does NOT transmit? They studied half a million and showed covid is not transmissible. Its TRUE. WAKE UP. NO pandemic. Fin. Done. CHINA had the truth, but we need to blame them for the false story. We need to say they hid the transmissibility of WHAT? The isolated virus from their computers they gave Pfizer and pharma after the truth of non transmissibility was ignored and exchanged with media globally parroting lies and ubiquitously demonizing China and a fake virus pandemic? China was not the enemy, nor did they cause a lab leak and hide it. But they became opportunists and sold a computer model “Virus” after the world declared a pandemic, but had we listened to China, the whole story of a PHEIC pandemic would have been prevented right out of the gate. But, no, the pandemic peddlers always need a virus, a lab leak a culprit and a villain.]

(3) On June 30, 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally notified the United Nations of the United States decision to withdraw from WHO, which would have taken effect on July 6, 2021, under the terms of a joint resolution adopted by Congress on June 14, 1948 (Public Law 80–643; 62 Stat. 441).

(4) A [SINGULAR] Pew Research Center survey conducted in April and May 2020 indicated that 51 percent of Americans felt that WHO had done a poor or fair job in managing the COVID–19 pandemic.

[IOJ note #2 - Do you see how absurd and poorly written this is? 51% of Americans in one stupid study felt that WHO had done a poor -OR- “fair” job. So let’s re-read: “A majority of 51% of Americans allegedly feel WHO has done a fair job in managing “THE” [presuming its true] covid pandemic. - A “poor OR fair” job? REALLY?.. is this SERIOUS???]

(5) On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden sent United Nations Director-General Antonio Guterres a letter retracting the United States notice of withdrawal from WHO.

(6) On December 1, 2021, at the second special session of the World Health Assembly (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘WHA’’) decided—

(A) to establish an [SINGULAR] intergovernmental negotiating body (referred to in this section as the ‘‘INB’’) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Convention’’), agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, with a view to adoption under Article 19 or any other provision of the WHO Constitution; and

(B) that the [SINGULAR] INB shall submit a progress report to the Seventy-sixth WHA and a working draft of the convention for consideration by the Seventy-seventh WHA, which is scheduled to take place beginning on March 18, 2024.

[IOJ note #3 - The INB is the body overseeing the Pandemic Treaty negotiations and all of the countries except Costa Rica have agreed to continue the negotiations.]

(7) On February 24, March 14 and 15, and June 6 through 8 and 15 through 17, 2022, the INB held its inaugural meeting at which the Director-General proposed the following 5 themes to guide the INB’s work in drafting the [SINGULAR] Convention:

(A) Building national, regional, and global capacities based on a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach.

(B) Establishing global access and benefit sharing for all pathogens, and determining a global policy for the equitable production and distribution of countermeasures.

(C) Establishing robust systems and tools for pandemic preparedness and response.

(D) Establishing a long-term plan for sustainable financing to ensure support for global health threat management and response systems.

(E) Empowering WHO to fulfill its mandate as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including for pan- demic preparedness and response.

[IOJ note #4 - above is about the Pandemic Treaty that multiple countries are currently trying to pass by the end of the year and all agree to decide by May 2025 WHA78 at the latest!]

(8) On July 18 through 22, 2022, the INB held its [SINGULAR] second meeting at which it agreed that the Convention would be adopted under Article 19 of the WHO Constitution and legally binding on the parties.

(9) On December 5 through 7, 2022, the INB held its [SINGULAR] third meeting at which it accepted a conceptual zero draft of the Convention and agreed to prepare a [SINGULAR] zero draft for consideration at the INB’s next meeting.

(10) In early January 2023, an [SINGULAR] initial draft of the Convention was sent to WHO member states in advance of its formal introduction at the fourth meeting of the INB, which is scheduled for February 27 through March 3, 2023. The [SINGULAR] draft includes broad and binding provisions, including rules governing parties’ access to pathogen genomic sequences and how the products or benefits of such access are to be distributed.

(11) Section 723.3 of title 11 of the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual states that when ‘‘determining whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty, the utmost care is to be exercised to avoid any invasion or compromise of the constitutional powers of the President, the Senate, and the Congress as a whole’’ and includes the following criteria to be considered when determining whether an international agreement should take the form of a treaty -OR- an executive agreement:

(A) ‘‘The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole’’.

(B) ‘‘Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws’’.

(C) ‘‘Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress’’.

(D) ‘‘Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements’’.

(E) ‘‘The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement’’.

(F) ‘‘The degree of formality desired for an agreement’’.

(G) ‘‘The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement’’.

(H) ‘‘The general international practice as to similar agreements’’.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) a significant segment of the American public is deeply skeptical of the World Health Organization, its leadership, and its independence from the pernicious political influence of certain member states, including the People’s Republic of China;

(2) Congress strongly prefers that any agreement related to pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response adopted by the World Health Assembly pursuant to the work of the INB be considered a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the Sen- ate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring;

(3) the scope of the agreement which the INB has been tasked with drafting, as outlined by the Director-General, is so broad that any application of the factors referred to in section 2(11) will weigh strongly in favor of it being considered a treaty; [IOJ note - Please remember the scope says above that under these conditions it could be a treaty -OR- a sole executive agreement - NOT just a treaty - so why does Senate want to make it a treaty, when it’s already meeting the threshold to be a sole executive agreement?] and given the level of public distrust, any relevant new agreement by the World Health Assembly which cannot garner the two-thirds vote needed for Senate ratification should not be agreed to or implemented by the United States.

SEC. 4. ANY WORLD HEALTH AGENCY CONVENTION OR AGREEMENT OR OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT RESULTING FROM THE [SINGULAR] INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATING BODY’S FINAL REPORT DEEMED TO BE A TREATY SUBJECT TO ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any convention, agreement, or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by the World Health Assembly pursuant to the recommendations, report, or work of the [SINGULAR] International Negotiating Body established by the second special session of the World Health Assembly is deemed to be a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, with two-thirds of Senators concurring.

end of Bill H.R. 1425

IOJ RANT OF THE DAY - THIS IS ODD TO US. NUFF SAID.

Share

Sponsor IOJ's Coffees To Work!

Leave a comment

Canadians please sign HERE if you have not already - we cannot let your Senate get together September 17 and pass the Pandemic Bill! The Canadian government is on the verge of passing legislation to create a Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act - A HUGE plan to overhaul Canadian law, affecting substantive rights, WITHOUT first having an official review and analysis of the response to COVID-19. The Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act was passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 2024, with 164 votes in favour and 144 votes against. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party all voted in favour of this new legislation, while the Conservative Party and Bloc Quebecois voted against it. Bill C-293 has already had its first reading in the Canadian Senate, and they will decide to either pass, amend, or reject C-293 at some point during the next session starting September 17, 2024.

Let’s speak up right now in unison to demand we are heard - say it loud!

NO to pandemic product peddling and profiteering in Canada!

Sign and send a notification email to STOP bill C-293 and send to your Canadian representatives within the Senate.

We made a form for you to protest last week, but now we see two new ways to protest which required us to make two new forms with two new customized protests, for a total of three ways to protest this Bill.

3 IMPORTANT PROTESTS TO SIGN

They are available here - LINK: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

• Please sign all 3 forms to cover all bases considering how critical this is:

https://sencanada.ca/en/calendar/

Share

Give IOJ a TIP

NOTICE: PAY ATTENTION- UPDATE!!!

Even if you already signed the form below, please go back to the page

LINK: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

We put up TWO new forms to sign -

NEW: You have THREE Ways to protest this Canada Bill

Sign all 3 here: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

Repeat - Same older LINK below has 2 new protest forms to sign & share: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

Our last post about this:

Canadian pandemic bill would regulate meat production, develop contract tracing

Included in Bill C-293 are provisions to 'regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,' produce 'alternative proteins,' and 'enable contact tracing of persons.'

Canadian Prime Minister Justin TrudeauKatherine KY Cheng/Getty Images

Tue Sep 10, 2024 - 5:19 pm EDT

U.S. citizens: Demand Congress investigate soaring excess death rates

OTTAWA, Ontario (LifeSiteNews) –– A “pandemic prevention and preparedness” bill introduced by a backbencher MP of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party would give sweeping powers to “prevent” as well as “prepare” for a future pandemic, including regulating Canadian agriculture.  

Bill C-293, or “An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness,” is now in its second reading in the Senate. The bill would amend the Department of Health Act to allow the minister of health to appoint a “National pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.” 

Bill C-293 was introduced to the House of Commons in the summer of 2022 by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith. The House later passed the bill in June of 2024 with support from the Liberals and NDP (New Democratic Party), with the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois opposing it.  

A close look at this bill shows that, if it becomes law, it would allow the government via officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after consulting the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and of Industry and provincial governments, to “regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture.” 

Text from the bill also states that the government would be able to “promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk,” which includes the “production of alternative proteins, and phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species.”  

It is not clear when Bill C-293 will proceed to the third reading in the Senate. When it was in the House, it took over a year for it to go from the second to the third reading. Should an early election be called this year, or the bill not get to its third reading before the fall of October of 2025, the bill will die.  

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Trudeau government has funded companies that produce food made from bugs. The Great Reset of Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF) has as part of its agenda the promotion of “alternative” proteins such as insects to replace or minimize the consumption of beef, pork, and other meats that they say have high “carbon” footprints. 

Trudeau’s current environmental goals are in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades, as well as curbing red meat and dairy consumption.

Bill would give the government powers to ‘enable contact tracing’   

Bill C-293 would allow the government to mandate industry help it in procuring products relevant to “pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified.” 

It would also allow the minister of industry to procure the “communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools,” which includes electronic applications that “enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics.” 

The bill will also “take into account the recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.” 

The federal government, and most provincial governments, during COVID, pushed and enacted contact tracing to monitor the general population. Any Canadians who traveled out of the country had to also use the government’s much maligned and scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app, which had a contact tracing feature.  

Also during COVID, the Trudeau government took a heavy-handed approach when it came to enacting laws or rules under the guise of “health.” For example, in October 2021 Trudeau announced unprecedented COVID-19 jab mandates for all federal workers and those in the transportation sector. He also announced that the unvaccinated would no longer be able to travel by air, boat, or train, both domestically and internationally.  

This policy resulted in thousands losing their jobs or being placed on leave for non-compliance. It also trapped “unvaccinated” Canadians in the country.  ]

PLEASE NOTE ONE OF THE NEWER ISSUES BEING DISCOVERED:

The original version of the proposed bill (C-293) included a section that would have required a comprehensive review of Canada’s response to COVID-19, BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A REVIEW WAS DELETED from the version that was passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 2024!

How can the federal government, in good faith, vote in new legislation for the management of future pandemics while completely dismissing the opportunity to gain valuable information and evidence on the handling or the mishandling of the previous pandemic?

https://childrenshealthdefense.ca/news/bill-c-293-quietly-legislated-to-prepare-canada-for-the-next-pandemic/

Canada needs a pandemic post-mortem NOW, not later

The bill Erskine-Smith has tabled would [have] compel[led] the health minister to create an advisory committee that would [have] pursue[d] a potentially broad study of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada.

That committee would [have] review[ed] the actions of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the federal department of health. It also would [have] look[ed] at the responses of provincial and municipal governments and "analyze[ed] the health, economic and social factors relevant to the impact of the pandemic in Canada."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pandemic-covid-review-erskine-smith-wherry-analysis-1.6610550

The original version of C-293 included the section below requiring a Comprehensive Review of the COVID-19 Response (see below).

THE TEXT BELOW WAS REMOVED!

Comprehensive Review of the COVID-19 Response

Advisory committee

3 (1) Within 90 days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Health must establish an advisory committee to review the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.

Function

(2) The function of the advisory committee is to make recommendations for the improvement, throughout Canada, of preparedness efforts and response capabilities in relation to disease outbreaks in order to reduce the risks associated with future pandemics.

Composition

(3) The committee must be gender-balanced and is to be composed of persons who reflect a range of relevant backgrounds and disciplines.

Scope of review

(4) In conducting its review, the advisory committee is, among other things, to

(a) assess the capability of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Department of Health to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic before and during the pandemic;

(b) in collaboration with provincial and municipal governments, assess the public health and pandemic response capabilities of those governments;

(c) assess the effectiveness of the exercise of powers under any applicable federal laws before, during and after the pandemic and of the coordination of measures taken under those laws; and

(d) analyse the health, economic and social factors relevant to the impact of the pandemic in Canada.

The above section was removed from C-293 before it was passed by the House of Commons.

HOWEVER, the House of Commons FAILED to remove the highlighted section below:

At the very least, C-293 needs to be amended because it mandates that the Minister of health MUST take into account recommendations made by a non-existent advisory committee.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL VERSION

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/bill/C-293/first-reading

CLICK HERE TO READ THE VERSION THAT WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON JUNE 5, 2024

https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/bill/C-293/third-reading

The proposed legislation (C-293) is inadequate in many ways:

1. The section requiring a full review of the response to COVID-19 was removed.

2. There is no definition of the term “pandemic.”

3. There is no mention of addressing the violations of rights and freedoms that occurred due to government over-reach in response to COVID-19.

4. There is no mention of addressing the adverse effects that were caused by the COVID-19 jabs and other medical and public health interventions.

5. There is no clarity regarding the “lessons learned” from previous outbreaks.

6. The “One Health Approach” referenced in C-293 has never been scientifically proven to be “central to preventing the risk of future pandemics”.

7. The reliance on fraudulent diagnostic “tests” (PCRfraud.com) and worthless personal protective equipment (MaskCharade.com) are not addressed.

8. There is no provision for public input into the process of creating a plan for prevention and preparedness of any future “pandemic.”

CANADA IS AN OPEN GOVERNMENT COUNTRY, THEY OWE PARTICIPATION

Share

Pledge Support

Leave a comment

Bill C-293

• First Reading

• Third Reading

BILL C-293

An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness

AS PASSED

BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

June 5, 2024

441147

SUMMARY

This enactment enacts the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act to require the Minister of Health to establish, in consultation with other ministers, a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan, which is to include information provided by those ministers.

It also amends the Department of Health Act to provide that the Minister of Health must appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada to coordinate the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.

BILL C-293

An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness

Preamble

Whereas the costs of prevention and preparedness measures are insignificant in comparison to the human and economic costs of a pandemic;

Whereas Parliament is committed to making efforts to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to those efforts;

Whereas it is critical to build on the lessons learned from previous outbreaks of serious diseases, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Ebola virus disease (EVD), Zika virus disease, tuberculosis, H1N1 flu and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);

Whereas a One Health approach — a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface — is central to preventing the risk of future pandemics;

And whereas this approach requires sustained collaboration among various ministers, all levels of government and Indigenous communities;

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Short Title

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act.

Purpose of Act

Purpose

2 The purpose of this Act is to prevent the risk of and prepare for future pandemics and to promote transparency and accountability in relation to the Government of Canada’s efforts to do so.

Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Plan

Pandemic prevention and preparedness plan

3 (1) The Minister of Health must establish a pandemic prevention and preparedness plan.

Plan — contents

(2) The pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must

(a) set out a summary of mitigation strategies that the Minister of Health intends to implement in order to prevent the risk of and prepare for disease outbreaks that could lead to pandemics, as well as a projected timeline for their implementation;

(b) identify the key drivers of pandemic risk and describe how Canadian activities, domestic and abroad, contribute to the risk;

(c) ensure sustained collaboration between the Minister of Health and provincial governments and Indigenous communities in the development of the plan in order to align approaches and address any jurisdictional challenges, including with respect to the collection and sharing of data;

(d) provide for training programs, including collaborative activities, with other levels of government, Indigenous communities and relevant agencies;

(e) ensure that standards and guidelines that pertain to the prevention of and response to pandemic risk are aligned with the approach described in para­graph (3)‍(a);

(f) describe the state of research in relation to preventing and responding to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics;

(g) provide for the establishment and interlinking of surveillance systems for infectious diseases in Canada and for infectious diseases of concern outside Canada;

(h) support local public health and primary care capacity building;

(i) identify preparedness strategies for public health services across Canada including in respect of

(i) the protection of vulnerable and marginalized populations,

(ii) working conditions of essential workers across all sectors,

(iii) the availability and management of relevant stockpiles, including testing equipment and personal protective equipment,

(iv) the surge capacity of human resources required for the testing and contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases, and

(v) communication of risk to the public;

(j) provide for measures, including training, to increase the ability of healthcare workers in a range of settings to manage sudden and unexpected increases in patient volume;

(k) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of Industry:

(i) the manufacturing capacity in Canada with respect to any product relevant to pandemic preparedness, including vaccines, testing equipment and personal protective equipment, and the measures that the Minister of Industry intends to take to address any supply chain gaps identified, and

(ii) the communications capacity and infrastructure for electronic platforms and tools, including electronic applications that enable contact tracing of persons exposed to infectious diseases that could lead to pandemics;

(l) after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and provincial governments, provide for measures to

(i) reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance,

(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,

(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins, and

(iv) phase out commercial activities that disproportionately contribute to pandemic risk, including activities that involve high-risk species;

(m) include the following information, to be provided by the Minister of the Environment:

(i) after consultation with relevant provincial ministers, a summary of changes in land use in Canada, including in relation to disturbed habitats, that could contribute to pandemic risk, such as deforestation, encroachment on wildlife habitats and urbanization and that were made, in the case of the first plan, since the last report on changes in land use published under the Federal Sustainable Development Act or, in the case of the updated plans, during the reporting period for the updated plan,

(ii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to reduce the risk that the commercial wildlife trade in Canada and abroad will lead to a pandemic, including measures to regulate or phase out live animal markets, and

(iii) a summary of the measures the Minister of the Environment intends to take to protect global biodiversity and to halt and reverse global deforestation;

(n) include a summary, to be provided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the measures that that minister intends to take to support global health equity, including measures to increase public health capacity around the world and to ensure equitable access to vaccines, testing equipment and treatment;

(o) set out, in consultation with relevant ministers, a summary of key cooperative measures or agreements on disease outbreak prevention and preparedness between the Government of Canada, other foreign governments and key international organizations, including the World Health Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; and

(p) set out, in consultation with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and other relevant ministers, the routes by which and rates at which pathogens that could lead to pandemics could enter Canada and a summary of border-related measures that would be implemented to reduce any risk.

Considerations

(3) When establishing the plan under subsection (1) or when providing the required information under subsection (2), the Minister of Health or the ministers referred to in subsection (2), as the case may be, must

(a) use a multisectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach, known as a One Health approach, that focuses on the human, animal, plant and ecosystem health and welfare interface;

(b) take into account the best scientific information available;

(c) leverage international expertise by using internationally developed metrics for pandemic prevention and preparedness, when applicable; and

(d) take into account the recommendations made by the advisory committee following its review of the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Canada.

Tabling

(4) Within two years after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Health must prepare a report setting out the plan and cause it to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after it is completed.

Publication

(5) The Minister of Health must publish the report on the website of the Department of Health within 10 days after it has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

Updated plan

4 (1) The Minister of Health must update the pandemic prevention and preparedness plan at least once every three years and cause a report setting out the updated plan to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after it is completed.

Updated plan — contents

(2) In the updated plan, the Minister of Health must

(a) report on the progress that has been made towards preventing pandemic risk and improving preparedness efforts in Canada;

(b) in collaboration with the relevant ministers, provide any relevant updates on the information described under subsection 3(2); and

(c) take into account the considerations set out in subsection 3(3).

Publication

(3) The Minister of Health must publish the report on the website of the Department of Health within 10 days after it has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

1996, c. 8

Amendment to the Department of Health Act

5 The Department of Health Act is amended by adding the following after section 4.‍1:

National coordinator — pandemic prevention and preparedness

4.‍11 For the purpose of coordinating the activities under the Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act, the Minister shall appoint a national pandemic prevention and preparedness coordinator from among the officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada and delegate to the coordinator the powers, duties and functions that the Minister considers appropriate.

Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons

Publication Explorer

Bill C-293
(Third Reading)
June 5, 2024

Table of Contents

• SUMMARY

• 1 Short Title

• 2 Purpose of Act

• 3 Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Plan

• 5 Amendment to the Department of Health Act

(To be clear, things still could go either way on the lead up to Summit of the Future - but for now this is EXCELLENT news to our ears!)

The THREE documents that U.N. attempted to accelerate were throttled!

Sharing The GOOD NEWS - There is no agreement on all three documents, YET:

First, we learned the Declaration on Future Generations went into Silence Procedure and helped organize an immediate response! That worked to break the first Silence Procedure on that document, but UN was accelerating and put the other two documents under Silence Procedure. We sprang into action to make a form for people to write in before the deadline to urge countries to break silence on Pact For the Future. Today we get to report it worked and Pact For The Future Silence Procedure is broken, along with all 3 documents that were not agreed by consensus, as explained below!

The following message has been circulated on behalf of the Co-Facilitators on September 4:

“Please be advised that silence on the Rev.3 has been broken. Delegations are invited to informal consultations at the ambassadorial level on Wednesday, 4 September at 11 a.m. in conference room 2. There will be no opportunity for general comments; each of the paragraphs on which silence was broken will be discussed in turn.”

Notice: when we find out which paragraphs are not agreed upon in the Pact for Future we will let you know!!

OK SO NOW WE KNOW….

Pact For the Future was NOT agreed upon so far - apparently some country(s) spoke up to break the UN imposed Silence Procedure, thank goodness!

We were pretty nervous to be honest! See us freaking out below - and read the draft text of Pact For the Future the countries just refused to accept last week!

“Please be advised that silence on the Pact For the Future Rev.3 has been broken.”

Also, we kept checking daily for any update on the Global Digital Compact, but until today IOJ couldn’t find anything about when it went into silence procedure.

Update and more good news about the Summit of the Future Documents is below:

Update on Global Digital Compact:

Rev 4 of the Global Digital Compact  was released and apparently - without any fanfare or publicity whatsoever - so basically in secret - put under silence until Thursday 29 August, 3pm (NY time).

Silence was broken on a number of paragraphs, including: 8 (a) and 50, 24, 27, 29 (d), 31 (d), 35 (e), 39 (d), 55 (a) and (b), 56, 63, 68, 69 and 74 as well as 11(c), 23(a), 27, 28, 30, 31(b), 31(d), 29(d), 45(b), 56, and 57. 

Notice: we are building a Substack to post later today where we are going through the paragraphs that are not yet agreed, where the UN Silence Procedure was broken for Rev 4 of the evil Global Digital Compact. We will return with details later today.

Rev 4 Global Digital Compact

264KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

For now, posted above is a fresh new copy of GDC Rev 4 for you to download - and we highlighted all the contentious Articles that caused UN Member States to break Silence Procedure for you to make it easy to get involved in these tedious global affairs!

Support the teams efforts!

Take notice of this interesting development in our favor:

Consultations are taking place on a number of the paragraphs on a bi-lateral basis for Global Digital Compact.

• IOJ public notice: This move to bi-lateral consultations means you BETTER step in and influence your countries delegate pronto - the HIVE mind pressure is off them from previously being multilateral consultations with everyone pressuring everyone else - Below is a list of all UN delegates - you will need to work to find their email, but we got you the list of Delegates - Thanks Shabnam Mohammed!

Heads Of Missions

180KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

[IOJ note - We must be WINNING because the whole point of the Summit is to reinvigorate MULTILATERALISM, but the remainder negotiations will be BI-LATERAL - THINK ABOUT THAT]

“Consultations are apparently taking place on a number of the paragraphs on a bi-lateral basis.”

THE UN PLAN FOR MULTILATERALISM IS FAILING? Looks like we have hope.

Sign Demand Below To Tell Member States and UN To Reject All UN Documents For Summit Of The Future

Link: https://stopagenda2030.org/summit-of-the-future

Thank You For having signed, It worked!

Together we actually are kicking UN’s ass, or at least it’s just getting started and ramping up. Yes dear Humanity, we got the UN Delegates to BREAK SILENCE on the first two documents by speaking up before the vote - Pray & keep fighting for our lives - because we still have a slim chance to win a better future without UN & Globalism!

Below are the actions we took and we are so happy it’s working!

Share

Subscribe now

Support the teams efforts!

IOJ has personal interests in preventing the 3 documents to be adopted in Summit of the Future - KEEP PUSHING!

Leave a comment

This is where this post ends, but for the die hards who want to write in - please see the following information to assist you in your efforts to deal with UN:

Also, make sure to sign the 10M challenge to EXIT UN! - Please Support the rare opportunity of two US Bills to fully leave UN - Dr. Rima made it easy for you all to take action:

• Sign the petition on preventgenocide2030.org

PS: Everyone’s tuning in to Dr. Rima TODAY - NOON - Join us!

Celia Farber even delayed a group Zoom invite to urge listeners to attend. See post below. We agree and will be there live today. Let’s get OUT of the UN traps where kleptocrat technocrats conspire to sell out and plan for our future!

 For The Sake Of People Being Able To Hear Dr. Rima Laibow's VITAL Presentation Today At 12 EDT, EXIT UN NOW--We Start Our Zoom Instead At 3 Pm EDT—Three Hours Later Than Was Planned—NEW ZOOM LINK

For those who want to write in and bitch:

Full List of UN Representatives As of Monday, 19 August 2024

LIST OF PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVES AND OBSERVERS TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK

(with date of presentation of credentials) Protocol and Liaison Service, List of PRs in NY (with date of presentation of credentials), 19 August 2024

*asterisk denotes latest change

AFGHANISTAN Mr. Naseer Ahmad Faiq (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

ALBANIA *H.E. Mrs. Suela Janina (5 April 2024)

ALGERIA H.E. Mr. Amar Bendjama (28 April 2023)

ANDORRA H.E. Mrs. Elisenda Vives Balmaña (3 November 2015)

ANGOLA H.E. Mr. Francisco José da Cruz (31 May 2023)

ANTIGUA & BARBUDA H.E. Mr. Walton Alfonso Webson (17 December 2014)

ARGENTINA *H.E. Mr. Ricardo Ernesto Lagorio (14 March 2024)

ARMENIA H.E. Mr. Mher Margaryan (31 August 2018)

AUSTRALIA H.E. Mr. James Martin Larsen (26 July 2023)

AUSTRIA H.E. Mr. Alexander Marschik (6 July 2020)

AZERBAIJAN H.E. Mr. Yashar T. Aliyev (10 June 2014)

BAHAMAS H.E. Mr. Stan Oduma Smith (10 March 2022)

BAHRAIN H.E. Mr. Jamal Fares Alrowaiei (14 September 2011)

BANGLADESH H.E. Mr. Muhammad Abdul Muhith (02 August 2022)

BARBADOS H.E. Mr. François Ayodele Jackman (21 May 2021)

BELARUS H.E. Mr. Valentin Rybakov (15 September 2017)

BELGIUM H.E. Mr. Philippe Kridelka (10 August 2020)

BELIZE H.E. Mr. Carlos Cecil Fuller (31 March 2021)

BENIN H.E. Mr. Marc Hermanne G. Araba (5 January 2021)

BHUTAN *H.E. Mr. Pema Lektup Dorji (7 June 2024)

BOLIVIA (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF) H.E. Mr. Diego Pary Rodríguez (11 December 2020)

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA H.E. Mr. Zlatko Lagumdžija (6 July 2023)

BOTSWANA H.E. Ms. Glady Mokhawa (22 August 2023)

BRAZIL H.E. Mr. Sérgio França Danese (6 July 2023)

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM H.E. Ms. Noor Qamar Sulaiman (18 February 2019)

BULGARIA H.E. Ms. Lachezara Stoeva (17 February 2021)

BURKINA FASO H.E. Mr. Oumarou Ganou (28 April 2023)

BURUNDI H.E. Mr. Zéphyrin Maniratanga (26 April 2021)

CABO VERDE H.E. Mrs. Tania Serafim Yvonne Romualdo (17 July 2023)

CAMBODIA *H.E. Mr. Tithiarun Mao (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

CAMEROON H.E. Mr. Michel Tommo Monthe (8 September 2008)_________________________________

CANADA H.E. Mr. Robert Rae (31 August 2020)

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC *H.E. Mr. Marius Aristide Hoja Nzessioue (28 June 2024)

CHAD H.E. Mr. Mouctar Abakar (02 August 2022)

CHILE H.E. Mrs. Paula Narváez Ojeda (08 June 2022)

CHINA *H.E. Mr. Fu Cong (16 April 2024)

COLOMBIA H.E. Ms. Leonor Zalabata Torres (06 October 2022)

COMOROS H.E. Mr. Issimail Chanfi (4 December 2020)

CONGO H.E. Mr. Lazare Makayat-Safouesse (17 May 2022)

COSTA RICA H.E. Ms. Maritza Chan Valverde (26 August 2022)

CÔTE D’IVOIRE H.E. Mr. Moriko Tiémoko (17 April 2023)

CROATIA H.E. Mr. Ivan Šimonović (16 September 2019)

CUBA *H.E. Mr. Ernesto Soberón Guzmán (5 April 2024)

CYPRUS *H.E. Mrs. Maria Michail (7 December 2023)

CZECH REPUBLIC H.E. Mr. Jakub Kulhánek (15 February 2022)

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S H.E. Mr. Kim Song (20 September 2018)

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO H.E. Mr. Zénon Mukongo Ngay (01 September 2023)

DENMARK H.E. Ms. Christina Markus Lassen (01 September 2023)

DJIBOUTI H.E. Mr. Mohamed Siad Doualeh (24 November 2015)

DOMINICA H.E. Mr. Philbert Aaron (6 July 2023)

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC H.E. Mr. José Alphonso Blanco Conde (19 October 2020)

ECUADOR *H.E. Mr. José Javier De la Gasca LopezDomínguez (1 December 2023)

EGYPT H.E. Mr. Osama Mahmoud Abdel Khalek Mahmoud (16 September 2021)

EL SALVADOR H.E. Mrs. Egriselda Aracely González López (21 August 2019)

EQUATORIAL GUINEA H.E. Mr. Anatolio Ndong Mba (7 January 2010)

ERITREA H.E. Ms. Sophia Tesfamariam (5 September 2019)

ESTONIA H.E. Mr. Rein Tammsaar (30 August 2022)

ESWATINI H.E. Thamie Dlamini (05 July 2022)

ETHIOPIA Mr. Tesfaye Yilma Sabo (13 February 2023)

FIJI H.E. Mr. Filipo Tarakinikini (17 April 2023)

FINLAND H.E. Ms. Outi Elina Kalkku (30 August 2022)

FRANCE H.E. Mr. Nicolas de Rivière (8 July 2019)

GABON H.E. Mr. Michel Xavier Biang (18 August 2017)

GAMBIA H.E. Mr. Lamin B. Dibba (16 September 2022)

GEORGIA H.E. Mr. David Bakradze (16 September 2022)

GERMANY H.E. Ms. Antje Leendertse (16 September 2021)

GHANA H.E. Mr. Harold Adlai Agyeman (21 May 2021)_________________________________

GREECE H.E. Mr. Evangelos C. Sekeris (21 December 2022)

GRENADA H.E. Mr. Ché Ajamu Phillip (16 June 2023)

GUATEMALA H.E. Ms. Carla María Rodríguez Mancia (16 September 2022)

GUINEA H.E. Mr. Paul Goa Zoumanigui (17 March 2023)

GUINEA BISSAU H.E. Mr. Samba Sane (16 September 2022)

GUYANA H.E. Mrs. Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett (2 October 2020)

HAITI H.E. Mr. Antonio Rodrigue (4 September 2020)

HONDURAS H.E. Ms. Mary Elizabeth Flores (29 April 2010)

HUNGARY H.E. Mrs. Zsuzsanna Horváth (16 February 2021)

ICELAND H.E. Mr. Jörundur Valtýsson (5 September 2019)

INDIA H.E. Ms. Ruchira Kamboj (02 August 2022)

INDONESIA H.E. Arrmanatha Christiawan Nasir (4 January 2022)

IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) H.E. Mr. Amir Saeid Iravani (07 September 2022)

IRAQ Mr. Abbas Kadhom Obaid Al-Fatlawi (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

IRELAND H.E. Mr. Fergal Tomas Mythen (26 August 2022)

ISRAEL *H.E. Mr. Danny Ben Yosef Danon (19 August 2024)

ITALY H.E. Mr. Maurizio Massari (19 July 2021)

JAMAICA H.E. Mr. Brian Christopher Manley Wallace (16 September 2021)

JAPAN *H.E. Mr. Yamazaki Kazuyuki (19 December 2023)

JORDAN H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud (2 September 2021)

KAZAKHSTAN *H.E. Mr. Kairat Umarov (19 June 2024)

KENYA *H.E. Mr. Erastus Ekitela Lokaale (12 August 2024)

KIRIBATI H.E. Mr. Teburoro Tito (13 September 2017)

KUWAIT H.E. Mr. Tareq Albanai (02 August 2022)

KYRGYZSTAN H.E. Ms. Aida Kasymalieva (15 February 2022)

LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC H.E. Mr. Anouparb Vongnorkeo (28 January 2020)

REPUBLIC

LATVIA H.E. Ms. Sanita Pavluta-Deslandes (22 August 2023)

LEBANON Mr. Hadi Hachem (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

LESOTHO H.E. Mr. Matete ‘Nena (6 July 2023)

LIBERIA H.E. Ms. Sarah Safyn Fyneah (13February 2023)

LIBYA H.E. Mr. Taher M. T. El-Sonni (6 January 2020)

LIECHTENSTEIN H.E. Mr. Christian Wenaweser (1 October 2002)

LITHUANIA H.E. Mr. Rytis Paulauskas (25 May 2021)

LUXEMBOURG H.E. Mr. Olivier Maes (15 July 2021)

MADAGASCAR Ms. Vero Henintsoa Andriamiarisoa (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

MALAWI H.E. Ms. Agnes Mary Chimbiri-Molande (13 January 2022)

MALAYSIA H.E. Mr. Ahmad Faisal Muhamad (29 March 2023)_________________________________

MALDIVES *H.E. Mr. Ali Naseer Mohamed (22 May 2024)

MALI H.E. Mr. Issa Konfourou (9 September 2016)

MALTA H.E. Mrs. Vanessa Frazier (6 January 2020)

MARSHALL ISLANDS *H.E. Mr. John Silk (19 June 2024)

MAURITANIA H.E. Mr. Sidi Mohamed Laghdaf (20 August 2020)

MAURITIUS H.E. Mr. Jagdish Dharamchand Koonjul (24 November 2015)

MEXICO *H.E. Mr. Héctor Enrique Vasconcelos y Cruz (30 January 2024)

MICRONESIA H.E. Mr. Jeem Lippwe (24 October 2022)

MONACO H.E. Ms. Isabelle F. Picco (11 September 2009)

MONGOLIA *H.E. Mr. Ankhbayar Nyamdorj (9 July 2024)

MONTENEGRO H.E. Mr. Damir Sabanovic (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

MOROCCO H.E. Mr. Omar Hilale (23 April 2014)

MOZAMBIQUE H.E. Mr. Pedro Comissário Afonso (8 December 2020)

MYANMAR H.E. Mr. Kyaw Moe Tun (20 October 2020)

NAMIBIA H.E. Mr. Neville Melvin Gertze (9 January 2017)

NAURU H.E. Ms. Margo Reminisse Deiye (27 November 2020)

NEPAL H.E. Mr. Lok Bahadur Thapa (01 September 2023)

NETHERLANDS H.E. Ms. Yoka Brandt (2 September 2020)

NEW ZEALAND H.E. Ms. Carolyn Schwalger (4 January 2022)

NICARAGUA H.E. Mr. Jaime Hermida Castillo (18 October 2018)

NIGER *Mr. Samadou Ousman (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

NIGERIA H.E. Mr. Tijjani Muhammad Bande (3 May 2017)

NORTH MACEDONIA H.E. Mr. Ljubomir Danailov Frchkoski (17 May 2022)

NORWAY H.E. Ms. Merete Fjeld Brattested (01 September 2023)

OMAN H.E. Mr. Mohamed Al Hassan (21 August 2019)

PAKISTAN H.E. Mr. Munir Akram (05 November 2019)

PALAU H.E. Ms. Ilana Victorya Seid (16 September 2021)

PANAMA *H.E. Ms. Zoraya Cano (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

PAPUA NEW GUINEA *H.E. Mr. Fred Sarufa (9 July 2024)

PARAGUAY *H.E. Mr. Marcelo Eliseo Scappini Ricciardi (9 July 2024)

PERU *H.E. Mr. Enrique Armando Román Morey (19 August 2024)

PHILIPPINES H.E. Mr. Antonio Manuel R. Lagdameo (07 September 2022)

POLAND H.E. Mr. Krzysztof Maria Szczerski (2 September 2021)

PORTUGAL *H.E. Mr. Rui Manuel Vinhas Tavares Gabriel (19 June 2024)

QATAR H.E. Sheikha Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani (24 October 2013)

REPUBLIC OF KOREA H.E. Mr. Joonkook Hwang (02 August 2022)

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA H.E. Mr. Gheorghe Leucă (18 November 2021)_________________________________

ROMANIA H.E. Mr. Cornel Feruta (16 September 2022)

RUSSIAN FEDERATION H.E. Mr. Vassily A. Nebenzia (28 July 2017)

RWANDA *H.E. Mr. Ernest Rwamucyo (7 December 2023)

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS *H.E. Ms. Mutryce Williams (15 January 2024)

SAINT LUCIA H.E. Ms. Menissa Rambally (10 March 2022)

SAINT VINCENT

AND THE GRENADINES H.E. Ms. Inga Rhonda King (13 September 2013)

SAMOA H.E. Mr. Fatumanava-O-Upolu III Pa’olelei Luteru (2 June 2021)

SAN MARINO H.E. Mr. Damiano Beleffi (22 August 2016)

SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE Mr. Alcínio Cravid e Silva (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

SAUDI ARABIA H.E. Mr. Abdulaziz Alwasil (02 August 2022)

SENEGAL H.E. Mr. Cheikh Niang (12 July 2018)

SERBIA H.E. Mr. Nemanja Stevanović (12 March 2021)

SEYCHELLES H.E. Mr. Ian Dereck Joseph Madeleine (16 September 2021)

SIERRA LEONE H.E. Mr. Michael Imran Kanu (01 September 2023)

SINGAPORE H.E. Mr. Burhan Gafoor (22 August 2016)

SLOVAKIA H.E. Mr. Richard Galbavy (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

SLOVENIA H.E. Mr. Boštjan Malovrh (22 June 2021)

SOLOMON ISLANDS H.E. Mrs. Jane Mugafalu Kabui Waetara (16 June 2022)

SOMALIA H.E. Mr. Abukar Dahir Osman (26 July 2017)

SOUTH AFRICA H.E. Ms. Mathu Theda Joyini (22 January 2021)

SOUTH SUDAN *H.E. Mrs. Cecilia Adout Majok Adeng (12 February 2024)

SPAIN *H.E. Mr. Héctor José Gómez Hernández (19 December 2023)

SRI LANKA H.E. Mr. Peter Mohan Maithri Pieris (13 January 2021)

SUDAN H.E. Mr. Al-Harith Idriss Al-Harith Mohamed (23 May 2022)

SURINAME H.E. Mr. Sunil Algram Sitaldin (4 January 2022)

SWEDEN H.E. Ms. Anna Karin Eneström (6 January 2020)

SWITZERLAND H.E. Mrs. Pascale Christine Baeriswyl (26 June 2020)

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC *H.E. Mr. Koussay Aldahhak (31 January 2024)

TAJIKISTAN H.E. Mr. Jonibek Ismoil Hikmat (4 June 2021)

THAILAND *H.E. Mr. Cherdchai Chaivaivid (7 June 2024)

TIMOR-LESTE H.E. Mr. Karlito Nunes (12 August 2021)

TOGO Mr. Koffi Akakpo (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

TONGA H.E. Mr. Viliami Va’inga Tōnē (5 July 2018)

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Mr. Ordell Cedric Barman (Chargé d’affaires, a.i.)

TUNISIA H.E. Mr. Tarek Ladeb (17 September 2020)

TÜRKİYE *H.E. Mr. Ahmet Yıldız (25 April 2024)_________________________________

TURKMENISTAN H.E. Mrs. Aksoltan Ataeva (23 February 1995)

TUVALU H.E. Mr. Tapugao Falefou (13 February 2023)

UGANDA H.E. Mr. Adonia Ayebare (3 May 2017)

UKRAINE H.E. Mr. Sergiy Kyslytsya (20 February 2020)

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES *H.E. Mr. Mohamed Issa Abushahab (15 April 2024)

UNITED KINGDOM H.E. Dame Barbara Woodward, DCMG, OBE (2 December 2020)

UNITED REP. OF TANZANIA H.E. Mr. Hussein Athuman Kattanga (17 April 2023)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA H.E. Ms. Linda Thomas-Greenfield (25 February 2021)

URUGUAY H.E. Mr. Carlos Daniel Amorín Tenconi (15 October 2019)

UZBEKISTAN H.E. Mr. Ulugbek Lapasov (22 August 2023)

VANUATU H.E. Mr. Odo Tevi (13 August 2014)

VENEZUELA (BOLIVARIAN H.E. Mr. Samuel R. Moncada Acosta (19 December 2017)

REPUBLIC OF)

VIET NAM H.E. Mr. Dang Hoang Giang (25 February 2022)

YEMEN H.E. Mr. Abdullah Ali Fadhel Al-Saadi (20 December 2018)

ZAMBIA H.E. Mr. Chola Milambo (17 May 2022)

ZIMBABWE *H.E. Mr. Taonga Mushayavanhu (7 June 2024)_________________________________

OBSERVERS

HOLY SEE H.E. Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia

STATE OF PALESTINE H.E. Mr. Riyad H. Mansour

So HAHAHAAA… Remember - UN is NOT God. We are Children of LIGHT and we also get to co-create our UNCOMMON and EXTRAORDINARY future! There shall be NO “Common” Future for us.

It’s about time Chile! 40 years to right serious wrongs like this? It’s obscene.

Now IOJ is just patiently waiting for Countries and WHO to accept their duty of State and International Organization responsibility for their outrageous covid crimes against humanity!… We’re suing the WHO to make that happen for the world!

Why do people even trust governments? They apparently steal our babies (Costa Rica just got caught using the countries child protective agency to traffic children and let us recall CPS with HHS in the US has repeatedly been accused of the same - It’s a widespread and systematic global government trafficking problem).

Not only do they steal our babies, we all know they generally acted as criminal dictatorships under their spuriously declared covid false emergency powers.

We are at the mercy of madmen. And the wheels of justice grind so slow, it’s so incredibly unfair! Why be the resistance when you can be the PERSISTENCE! Do you feel like a crime victim? Are we all victims of government attacks? Probably in one way or another. We need to hold some evil monsters responsible and Chili is a good place to start! We are proud of this litigant for taking this horrible crime, exposing it and holding his corrupt government to account. May we all be so brave and persistent!

Share

Help IoJ With A Donation

Stolen at birth, an adoptee sues Chile over thousands of similar dictatorship-era crimes

Born in Chile and adopted in the U.S., Marine Jimmy Lippert Thyden arrives at the Supreme Court to present a criminal complaint against the Chilean government for child abduction, a widespread practice that spanned decades, in Santiago, Chile, Monday, July 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)

A Chilean-American raised in the United States filed a criminal complaint against the Chilean government on Monday, alleging that it engaged in a systematic plan to steal thousands of babies from perceived enemies of the state in the 1970s and 1980s.

The case filed by Jimmy Lippert Thyden González, 43, aims to advance the task of Chilean prosecutors and human rights groups working on accountability for crimes committed under Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

On Sept. 11, 1973, Pinochet led a coup to overthrow Marxist President Salvador Allende, ushering in a period of brutal repression until 1990 during which at least 3,095 people were killed and tens of thousands more were imprisoned and tortured for political reasons.

Little more than a year after learning about his origins as one of thousands of Chilean adoptees taken from their biological parents without consent during Pinochet's dictatorship, Thyden González lodged his lawsuit in Santiago, Chile's capital.

He did it at a pivotal moment. On Monday, a new judge assumed control over the judicial investigations into the dictatorship's child-trafficking operations, the latest action as the left-wing government of President Gabriel Boric seeks to strengthen Chile's accountability efforts.

“First and foremost, we start with acknowledgement by the government that this has happened. Acknowledgment that there was a wrong," Thyden González, a lawyer and former Marine who was raised in Virginia, told The Associated Press in Santiago. "From there we can build on what reparations look like."

Last year, with the help of Nos Buscamos, a Chilean nonprofit facilitating the reconnection of families severed by coerced adoptions, Thyden González managed to track down and hug his birth mother, Maria Angelica González, who last glimpsed her newborn son being whisked away in a Santiago hospital ward.

Medics had told her that her premature son died shortly after delivery and that they had buried him while she recovered in the hospital. In reality, baby Thyden was given up for adoption to a family in the United States — one of the thousands of illegal overseas adoptions in Chile that predated Pinochet's dictatorship but increased during his 17 years in power.

According to reports from the Chilean judiciary obtained by the AP, there were some 20,000 cases of coerced or criminal adoptions overall. Civil society organizations such as Nos Buscamos estimate that more than 50,000 Chilean families have been affected.

It took until 2017 for Chile to launch judicial investigations into the chilling practice. The government has built a DNA database to enable adoptees and biological families to connect.

No one has been charged in connection with the abductions. Rights groups have criticized the government's failure to investigate the crimes more diligently and swiftly.

Officials in the Justice Ministry say 1,200 cases of coerced adoption — with most involving the Chilean babies taken to the United States and Sweden for adoption — are winding their way through the Santiago appeals court.

Chile's president met last week with the Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in Stockholm, where they struck a cooperation agreement to “advance information sharing” about the coerced adoptions.

Thyden González's lawsuit is one of many attempts at finding justice. But while most of the previous criminal complaints turn on the specifics of individual adoptees' experiences, González’s case hopes to have a broader resonance.

His complaint stands out in denouncing a “systematic situation that spanned decades.”

“Apart from individual responsibilities, we are interested in determining the responsibility of the Chilean state," said Ciro Colombara, a human rights lawyer who filed Thyden González’s complaint. “This will be a discussion in local courts, national courts and eventually international human rights courts.”

Source: The Associated Press

Published July 1, 2024 7:30 p.m. CST

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -

Share

Leave a comment

Help IoJ With A Donation

Shall we step in to quickly act to defend our Canadian allies from another big threat to our rights? Probably.

Calling all Canadians to sign! Everyone worldwide please share!

We think this one is indeed worth reacting to immediately, which is overwhelming, but worth it.

As if there wasn’t already total madness due to the impending doom of the IHR amendments curing, the Pandemic Treaty being agreed, the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations, we should take note of what is happening to domestic law in Canada (and it will be your country next folks).

The Canadian government is on the verge of passing legislation to create a Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act - A HUGE plan to overhaul Canadian law, affecting substantive rights, WITHOUT first having an official review and analysis of the response to COVID-19.

The Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act was passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 2024, with 164 votes in favour and 144 votes against. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party all voted in favour of this new legislation, while the Conservative Party and Bloc Quebecois voted against it.

Bill C-293 has already had its first reading in the Canadian Senate, and they will decide to either pass, amend, or reject C-293 at some point during the next session starting September 17, 2024.

Let’s speak up right now in unison to demand we are heard - say it loud!

NO to pandemic product peddling and profiteering in Canada!

Sign and send a notification email to STOP bill C-293 and send to your Canadian representatives within the Senate.

LINK: https://interestofjustice.org/rejectcanadianbillc-293

Together, by voicing our opinions and wishes, we can stop the pandemic racketeering programs encroaching rapidly into Canadian law!

Also read more on other peoples take on the details of why this Canadian Act is so critical to step in and urgently prevent. Below you can find much more info - thankfully we don’t need to rewrite it all! James Roguski has complied the rabbit hole on this issue in Canada and added ours and other petitions to sign, his own compilation of information and his take, Lawyer Lisa’s take, etc, etc. - Let’s act in UNISON on this!

We are co-creators in how the world will be governed - we are NOT slaves to the WHO concept of fake pandemics and we will NOT allow Canada to do this without OBJECTING!

James Roguski

The Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness Act

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED NOW…

Read more

2 years ago · 44 likes · 14 comments · James Roguski

Share

Yes! I will support now!

Leave a comment

Courtesy of James Roguski and Interest of Justice, information to manually send:

Physical mail may be sent postage-free to any Senator at the following address:

Name of Senator
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4

To call, fax or email Canadian Senators:

https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/

Copy the email template below and send it to all 97 Senators.

SAMPLE EMAIL:

Feel free to copy the text below (edit it to suit your own personal opinion) and then paste it into your email account in order to send it to the 97 Senators listed below.

Please realize that you can send as many emails, as often as you want, to as many Senators as you wish.

Re: Bill C-293 should NOT pass because of the following deficiencies:

1. The section requiring a full review of the response to COVID-19 was removed.

2. There is no definition of the term “pandemic.”

3. There is no mention of addressing the violations of rights and freedoms that occurred due to government over-reach in response to COVID-19.

4. There is no mention of addressing the adverse effects that were caused by the COVID-19 jabs and other medical and public health interventions.

5. There is no clarity regarding the “lessons learned” from previous outbreaks.

6. The “One Health Approach” referenced in C-293 has never been scientifically proven to be “central to preventing the risk of future pandemics.”

7. The reliance on fraudulent diagnostic “tests” (PCRfraud.com) and worthless personal protective equipment (MaskCharade.com) are not addressed.

8. There is no provision for public input into the process of creating a plan for prevention and preparedness of any future “pandemic.”

Please VOTE NO on C-293.

- - - - -

Objet : Le projet de loi C-293 ne devrait PAS être adopté en raison des lacunes suivantes:

1. La section exigeant un examen complet de la réponse à la COVID-19 a été supprimée.

2. Il n'existe pas de définition du terme "pandémie".

3. Il n'est pas fait mention de s'attaquer aux violations des droits et libertés qui se sont produites en raison de l'intervention excessive du gouvernement en réponse à la COVID-19.

4. Il n'est pas fait mention de s'attaquer aux effets indésirables causés par les vaccins COVID-19 et d'autres interventions médicales et de santé publique.

5. Il n'y a pas de clarté concernant les « leçons apprises » des épidémies précédentes.

6. Il n'a jamais été scientifiquement prouvé que l'« approche « Une seule santé » mentionnée dans le projet de loi C-293 est « essentielle pour prévenir le risque de pandémies futures ».

7. Le recours à des « tests » diagnostiques frauduleux (PCRfraud.com) et à des équipements de protection individuelle (MaskCharade.com) sans valeur n'est pas abordé.

8. Il n'y a aucune disposition permettant au public de participer au processus de création d'un plan de prévention et de préparation à toute future "pandémie".

S'il vous plaît, votez NON sur le projet de loi C-293.

For your convenience, the email addresses for all 97 of the 99 current Canadian Senators are listed below.

amina.gerba@sen.parl.gc.ca

andrew.cardozo@sen.parl.gc.ca

bernadette.clement@sen.parl.gc.ca

bev.busson@sen.parl.gc.ca

brent.cotter@sen.parl.gc.ca

brian.francis@sen.parl.gc.ca

chantal.petitclerc@sen.parl.gc.ca

charles.adler@sen.parl.gc.ca

claude.carignan@sen.parl.gc.ca

clement.gignac@sen.parl.gc.ca

colin.deacon@sen.parl.gc.ca

david.arnot@sen.parl.gc.ca

david.richards@sen.parl.gc.ca

david.wells@sen.parl.gc.ca

denise.batters@sen.parl.gc.ca

diane.bellemare@sen.parl.gc.ca

don.plett@sen.parl.gc.ca

donna.dasko@sen.parl.gc.ca

elizabeth.marshall@sen.parl.gc.ca

eric.forest@sen.parl.gc.ca

fabian.manning@sen.parl.gc.ca

flordeliz.osler@sen.parl.gc.ca

frances.lankin@sen.parl.gc.ca

gwen.boniface@sen.parl.gc.ca

h.yussuff@sen.parl.gc.ca

iris.petten@sen.parl.gc.ca

jane.cordy@sen.parl.gc.ca

jane.macadam@sen.parl.gc.ca

jean-guy.dagenais@sen.parl.gc.ca

jim.quinn@sen.parl.gc.ca

joan.kingston@sen.parl.gc.ca

john.mcnair@sen.parl.gc.ca

josee.verner@sen.parl.gc.ca

judith.seidman@sen.parl.gc.ca

judy.white@sen.parl.gc.ca

julie.miville-dechene@sen.parl.gc.ca

karen.sorensen@sen.parl.gc.ca

kim.pate@sen.parl.gc.ca

krista.ross@sen.parl.gc.ca

larry.smith@sen.parl.gc.ca

leo.housakos@sen.parl.gc.ca

lucie.moncion@sen.parl.gc.ca

manuelle.oudar@sen.parl.gc.ca

marc.gold@sen.parl.gc.ca

margaretdawn.anderson@sen.parl.gc.ca

margo.greenwood@sen.parl.gc.ca

marie-francoise.megie@sen.parl.gc.ca

marilou.mcphedran@sen.parl.gc.ca

marnie.mcbean@sen.parl.gc.ca

martin@sen.parl.gc.ca

marty.deacon@sen.parl.gc.ca

marty.klyne@sen.parl.gc.ca

mary.coyle@sen.parl.gc.ca

mary.robinson@sen.parl.gc.ca

maryjane.mccallum@sen.parl.gc.ca

michael.macdonald@sen.parl.gc.ca

michele.audette@sen.parl.gc.ca

mohamed-iqbal.ravalia@sen.parl.gc.ca

mohammad.alzaibak@sen.parl.gc.ca

nancy.hartling@sen.parl.gc.ca

pamela.wallin@sen.parl.gc.ca

pat.duncan@sen.parl.gc.ca

patrick.brazeau@sen.parl.gc.ca

patti.laboucane-benson@sen.parl.gc.ca

paul.massicotte@sen.parl.gc.ca

paul.prosper@sen.parl.gc.ca

paula.simons@sen.parl.gc.ca

paulette.senior@sen.parl.gc.ca

percy.downe@sen.parl.gc.ca

peter.boehm@sen.parl.gc.ca

peter.harder@sen.parl.gc.ca

pierrej.dalphond@sen.parl.gc.ca

pierrette.ringuette@sen.parl.gc.ca

ratna.omidvar@sen.parl.gc.ca

raymonde.gagne@sen.parl.gc.ca

raymonde.saint-germain@sen.parl.gc.ca

rebecca.patterson@sen.parl.gc.ca

rejean.aucoin@sen.parl.gc.ca

rene.cormier@sen.parl.gc.ca

robert.black@sen.parl.gc.ca

rodger.cuzner@sen.parl.gc.ca

rosa.galvez@sen.parl.gc.ca

rosemary.moodie@sen.parl.gc.ca

rosemay.poirier@sen.parl.gc.ca

salma.ataullahjan@sen.parl.gc.ca

scott.tannas@sen.parl.gc.ca

sharon.burey@sen.parl.gc.ca

stanley.kutcher@sen.parl.gc.ca

stephen.greene@sen.parl.gc.ca

toni.varone@sen.parl.gc.ca

tony.dean@sen.parl.gc.ca

tony.loffreda@sen.parl.gc.ca

tracy.muggli@sen.parl.gc.ca

victor.boudreau@sen.parl.gc.ca

wandathomas.bernard@sen.parl.gc.ca

yuenpau.woo@sen.parl.gc.ca

yvonne.boyer@sen.parl.gc.ca

https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/

The email addresses for two recently appointed Senators have not been made publicly available:

Dr. Kristopher Wells

Daryl Fridhandler

There are 6 vacant seats:

British Columbia (2), Nunavut (1), Ontario (1), Quebec (2)

Send both of the automated emails below:

Dear Senator,

Please VOTE NO on C-293

The Senate is on the verge of passing legislation to create a Pandemic Prevention and Preparedness plan WITHOUT first having an official review and analysis of the response to COVID-19 The original version of the proposed bill included a section that would have required a comprehensive review of Canada’s response to COVID-19, BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A REVIEW WAS DELETED from the version that was passed by the House of Commons on June 5, 2024  

Re: Bill C-293 should NOT pass because of the following deficiencies:

1. The section requiring a full review of the response to COVID-19 was removed.

2. There is no definition of the term “pandemic.”

3. There is no mention of addressing the violations of rights and freedoms that occurred due to government over-reach in response to COVID-19.

4. There is no mention of addressing the adverse effects that were caused by the COVID-19 jabs and other medical and public health interventions.

5. There is no clarity regarding the “lessons learned” from previous outbreaks.

6. The “One Health Approach” referenced in C-293 has never been scientifically proven to be “central to preventing the risk of future pandemics.”

7. The reliance on fraudulent diagnostic “tests” (PCRfraud.com) and worthless personal protective equipment (MaskCharade.com) are not addressed.

8. There is no provision for public input into the process of creating a plan for prevention and preparedness of any future “pandemic.”

Please VOTE NO on C-293.

- - - - -

Chère sénatrice,

VEUILLEZ VOTEZ NON au projet de loi C-293

Le Sénat est sur le point d’adopter une loi visant à créer un plan de prévention et de préparation en cas de pandémie SANS avoir au préalable procédé à un examen et à une analyse officiels de la réponse à la COVID-19.

La version originale du projet de loi proposé comprenait une section qui aurait exigé un examen complet de la réponse du Canada à la COVID-19, MAIS L’EXIGENCE D’UN EXAMEN A ÉTÉ SUPPRIMÉE de la version adoptée par la Chambre des communes le 5 juin 2024

Objet : Le projet de loi C-293 ne devrait PAS être adopté en raison des lacunes suivantes :

1. La section exigeant un examen complet de la réponse à la COVID-19 a été supprimée.

2. Il n’y a aucune définition du terme « pandémie ».

3. Il n’est pas fait mention de la nécessité de remédier aux violations des droits et des libertés qui se sont produites en raison de l’intervention excessive du gouvernement en réponse à la COVID-19.

4. Il n’est pas question de remédier aux effets indésirables causés par les vaccins contre la COVID-19 et d’autres interventions médicales et de santé publique.

5. Il n’y a aucune précision concernant les « leçons tirées » des épidémies précédentes.

6. L’« approche One Health » mentionnée dans le projet de loi C-293 n’a jamais été scientifiquement prouvée comme étant « essentielle pour prévenir le risque de futures pandémies ».

7. Le recours à des « tests » de diagnostic frauduleux (PCRfraud.com) et à des équipements de protection individuelle sans valeur (MaskCharade.com) n’est pas abordé.

8. Il n’est pas prévu de participation du public au processus de création d’un plan de prévention et de préparation à toute future « pandémie ».

See video explainer here: https://rumble.com/v5cvhl1-summit-of-the-future-and-pact-for-the-future-of-total-slavery-explainer.html

HERE is the most recent version of Pact for the Future released August 27, 2024:

Pact For The Future Rev 3

529KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

FULL TEXT OF REV 3 UNDER SILENCE PROCEDURE TIL SEPT 3 IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST FOR YOU TO READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT!

‘PACT FOR THE FUTURE OF TOTAL SLAVERY’ IS OFFICIALLY UNDER SILENCE PROCEDURE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3, 2024, 1PM EST!

Please share and sign to say NO.

We are gathering signatures and all the emails we can find to send it to! If you don’t act - you are SILENT and thereby facilitating our demise by your act of Silence which is akin to consenting to our countries agreeing to the draft below:

Link: https://whowatch.org/rejectpactforthefuture

PACT FOR THE FUTURE OF TOTAL SLAVERY

Some of IoJ’s concerns about the PACT:

Can We Call It What It IS?

The Pact For The Future Of Total Slavery! Free Will? That’s OVER!!!

First, We really believe it will be the ‘Pact For The Future of Total Enslavement’, if adopted, so thats a deal breaker and a grave threat to our freedom’s. We got the latest text for you assembled below and are asking you all to share it!

Second, The States will be paying for the horrible sustainable development goals SDG’s and to be forced to cooperate in the UN’s International Tax scheme. Do we want the UN to coordinate a global tax to fund SDG’s? Hint: We Don’t want it!

(i) Promote inclusive and effective international tax cooperation, which contributes significantly to national efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, as it enables countries to effectively mobilize their domestic resources and stress that the current international tax governance structures need improvements.

We are committed to strengthening the inclusiveness and effectiveness of tax cooperation at the United Nations, while taking into consideration the work of other relevant forums and institutions, and will continue to engage constructively in the process towards developing a United Nations framework convention on international tax cooperation.

Third, It’s just a horrible digital technocracy that will censor and jab us while it ushers in 15 Minute cities and Agenda 2030 in a far more organized and quick way.

Fourth, It is just the worst idea ever and based in many false presumptions of climate and vaccine countermeasures science and frankly its all appearing to be a Trojan Horse for Global Communism under UN.

There is far too much to complain about so read the current version (August 27 version pasted below and you can download the doc above)

Action 9. We will strengthen our actions to address climate change.

 In pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and of the Paris Agreement, we reaffirm the importance of accelerating action in this critical decade on the basis of the best available science, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. We underscore that the impact of climate change will be much lower at the temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with 2 degrees Celsius.

(h) Protect everyone on earth through universal coverage of multi-hazard early warning systems by 2027, including through the accelerated implementation of the Early Warnings for All initiative.

Support Take Down The Beast

Share

Leave a comment

Full text of the August 27 2024 version Rev 3 of Pact For The Future:

Pact for the Future: Rev.3

1. We, the Heads of State and Government, representing the people of the world, have gathered at United Nations Headquarters to protect the needs and interests of present and future generations through the actions in this Pact for the Future.

2. We are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make. Fellow human beings are enduring terrible suffering. If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.

3. Yet this is also a moment of hope and opportunity. Global transformation is a chance for renewal and progress grounded in our common humanity. Advances in knowledge, science, technology, and innovation could deliver a breakthrough to a better and more sustainable future for all. The choice is ours.

4. We believe there is a path to a brighter future for all of humanity, including those living in poverty and vulnerable situations. Through the actions we take today, we resolve to set ourselves on that path, striving for a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable and prosperous, a world in which human well-being, security and dignity and a healthy planet are assured.

5. This will require a recommendation to international cooperation based on respect for international law, without which we can neither manage the risks nor seize the opportunities we face. This is not an option but a necessity. Our challenges are deeply interconnected and far exceed the capacity of any single State alone. They can only be addressed collectively, through strong and sustained international cooperation by trust and solidarity for the benefit of all and harnessing the power of those who can contribute from all sectors and generations.

6. We recognize that the multilateral system and its institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the center, must be strengthened to keep pace with a changing world. They must be fit for the present and the future – effective and capable, prepared for the future, just, democratic, equitable and representative of today's world, inclusive, interconnected, and financially stable.

7. Today, we pledge a new beginning in multilateralism. The actions in this Pact aim to ensure that the United Nations and other key multilateral institutions can deliver a better future for people and planet, enabling us to fulfill our existing commitments while rising to new and emerging challenges and opportunities.

8. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to act in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and its purposes and principles.

9. We also reaffirm that the three pillars of the United Nations – sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights – are equally important, interlinked and mutually reinforcing. We cannot have one without the others.

10. We recognize that sustainable development in all of its three dimensions is a central goal in itself and that its achievement, leaving no- one behind, is and always will be a central objective of multilateralism. We reaffirm our enduring commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals. We will urgently accelerate progress towards achieving the goals, including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant financing for developing countries, with special attention to opportunities for young people and the needs of those in special situations. Poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, remains the greatest global challenge and its eradication is an indispensable requirement for sustainable development.

11. Climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are amongst the greatest challenges of our time with adverse impacts that are disproportionately felt by developing countries and those in vulnerable situations. We commit to accelerate meeting our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement1. We reaffirm the Paris Agreement temperature goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre- industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduces the risks and impacts of climate change. We emphasize the urgency and importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in this critical decade in order to keep global average temperature rise below 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and support developing countries to adapt and respond to the adverse effects of climate change.

12. To live up to our foundational promise to protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war, we must abide by international law, including the Charter, and make full use of all the instruments and mechanisms set out in the Charter, intensifying our use of diplomacy, committing to resolve our disputes peacefully, refraining from the threat or use of force or acts of aggression, respecting each-other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, upholding the principles of political independence and self-determination, strengthening accountability and ending impunity. With challenges and risks to international peace and security taking on more dangerous forms, in traditional and new domains, our efforts must keep pace.

13. Every commitment in this Pact is fully consistent and aligned with international law, including human rights law. We reaffirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the fundamental freedoms enshrined therein and we will place the full enjoyment of human rights and dignity at the heart of our actions to
implement the Pact. We will respect, protect, promote and fulfill all human rights, recognizing their universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness and we will be unequivocal in what we stand for and uphold: freedom from fear and freedom from want for all.

14. We recognize that our efforts to redress injustice and to reduce inequalities within and between countries to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies cannot succeed unless we step up our efforts to promote tolerance, embrace diversity and combat all forms of discrimination, including racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and all their abhorrent and contemporary forms and manifestations.

15. None of our goals can be achieved without the full, safe, equal and meaningful participation and representation of all women and girls in political and economic life. We reaffirm our commitment to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, to accelerating our efforts to achieve gender equality, women's participation and the empowerment of all women and girls in all domains and to eliminating all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls.

16. We reaffirm our pledge, made on the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, to reinvigorate global action to ensure the future we want and to effectively respond to current and future challenges, in partnership with all relevant stakeholders. We recognize that the well-being of current and future generations and the sustainability of our planet remains on our willingness to take action. To that end, in this Pact we commit to sixty actions in the areas of sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations, and transforming global governance.

17. We will advance implementation of these actions through relevant, mandated intergovernmental processes, where they exist. We will review the overall implementation of the Pact at the beginning of the eighty-third session of the General Assembly through a meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government. We are confident that by then, we will be well on course towards the better and more sustainable future we want for ourselves, our children and all the generations who will come after us.

1. Sustainable development and financing for development

18. In 2015, we resolved to free the human race from the tyranny of poverty, hunger and want and to heal and secure our planet. We promised we would leave no one behind. We have made some progress, but the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals is in progress. Progress on most of the goals is either moving too slowly or has regressed below the 2015 baseline. Years of sustainable development gains are being reversed. Poverty, hunger and inequality have increased. Human rights are under threat, and we run the risk of leaving millions of people behind. Climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification and sand and dust storms, pollution and other environmental challenges pose immense risks to our natural environment and our prospects for development.

19. We will not accept a future in which dignity and opportunity are denied to half the world's population or becomes the sole preservation of those with privilege and wealth. Sustainable development and the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. We reaffirm that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is our overarching road map for achieving sustainable development in all three of its dimensions, overcoming the multiple, interlinked crises we face and securing a better future for present and future generations. We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. We reaffirm that gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls is an essential prerequisite to sustainable development. We cannot achieve our shared ambitions for the future without addressing these challenges with urgency and renewed vigor. We are committed to ensuring that the multilateral system can turbocharge our aspirations to deliver for people and planet, and we will place people at the center of all our actions.

Action 1. We will take bold, ambitious, accelerated, just and transformative actions to implement the 2030 Agenda, achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and leave no one behind.

20. We reaffirm that the Sustainable Development Goals are comprehensive, far-reaching and people centered. We reiterate our steadfast commitment to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development, working closely with all relevant stakeholders. We recognize that the 2030 Agenda is universal and that all developing countries, including countries in special situations, in particular African Countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States countries in conflict and post conflict situations, require assistance to implement the Agenda. We reaffirm the Rio , as well as those with specific challenges, including Middle Income Countries and Declaration on Environment and Development, including all its principles. We decide to:

(b) Fully implement the commitments in the Political Declaration agreed at the Sustainable Development Goals Summit in 2023.

(c) Mobilize and deliver significant and adequate resources and investments from all sources for sustainable development.

(d) Remove all obstacles to sustainable development and refrain from economic coercion.

Action 2. We will place the eradication of poverty at the center of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

21. Eradicating poverty, in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is an imperative for all humankind. We decide to:

(a) Take comprehensive and targeted measures to eradicate poverty by addressing the multidimensional nature of poverty, including through rural development strategies and investments and innovations in the social sector, especially education and health.

(b) Take concrete actions to prevent people falling back into poverty, including by establishing well-designed, sustainable and efficient social protection systems for all that are responsive to shocks.

Action 3. We will end hunger, eliminate food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition.

22. We remain deeply concerned that one-third of the world's population remain food insecure, and we will respond to and address the drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition. We decide to:

(a) Support countries and communities affected by food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition through coordinated action, including through the provision of emergency food supplies, programmes, financing, support to agricultural production, building national resilience to shocks and by ensuring food and agriculture supply chains function, and markets and trade channels remain free and open.

(b) Assist countries in debt distress manage volatility in international food markets and work in partnership with international financial institutions and the United Nations system to support developing countries affected by food insecurity.

(c) Promote equitable, resilient, inclusive and sustainable agrifood systems so that everyone has access to safe, affordable, sufficient and nutritious food.

Action 4. We will close the SDG financing gap in developing countries.

23. We are deeply concerned by the growing SDG financing gap facing developing countries. We must close this gap to prevent a lasting sustainable development divide, widening inequality within and between
countries and a further erosion of trust in international relations and the multilateral system. We note ongoing efforts to address the SDG financing gap, including through the Secretary-General's proposal for an SDG Stimulus. We decide to:

(a) Provide and mobilize sustainable, affordable, accessible, transparent and predictable development finance from all sources and the required means of implementation to developing countries.

(b) Continue to advance with urgency towards an SDG Stimulus through the Secretary-General's proposal at the United Nations and in other relevant forums.

(c) Scale up and fulfill our respective official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by most developed countries to achieve the goal of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI), and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance to Least Developed Countries.

(d) Continue discussions on the modernization of measurements of official development assistance, while adhering to existing commitments.

(e) Ensure that development assistance is focused on, and reaches developing countries, focused in particular on the poorest and most vulnerable, and take further actions to strengthen its effectiveness.

(f) Create a more enabling environment at the global, regional and national level to increase the mobilization of domestic resources and enhance the capacities, institutions and systems of developing countries at all levels to achieve this goal, including through international support, to increase investment in sustainable development.

(g) Implement effective economic, social and environmental policies and ensure good governance and transparent institutions to advance sustainable development. (h) Strengthen ongoing efforts to prevent and combat illicit financial flows, corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, eliminate safe havens and recover and return assets derived from illicit activities.

(i) Promote inclusive and effective international tax cooperation, which contributes significantly to national efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, as it enables countries to effectively mobilize their domestic resources and stress that the current international tax governance structures need improvements. We are committed to strengthening the inclusiveness and effectiveness of tax cooperation at the United Nations, while taking into consideration the work of other relevant forums and institutions, and will continue to engage constructively in the process towards developing a United Nations framework convention on international tax cooperation .

(j) Explore options for international cooperation on the taxation of high net-worth individuals in the appropriate forum. (k) Support developing countries to catalyze increased private sector investment in sustainable development, including by promoting inclusive and innovative finance mechanisms and partnerships and by creating a more enabling domestic and international regulatory and investment environment, and through the catalytic use of public financing. (l) Scale up support from all sources for investment in increasing productive capacities, inclusive and sustainable industrialization, infrastructure and structural economic transformation, diversification and growth in developing countries.

(m) Secure an ambitious outcome at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in 2025 to close the SDG financing gap and accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Action 5. We will ensure that the multilateral trading system continues to be an engine for sustainable development.

24. We are committed to a rules-based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core. We highlight the importance of the multilateral trading system contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. We reiterate that States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying unilateral economic measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries. We decide to:

(a) Promote export-led growth in developing countries through, inter alia, preferential trade access for least developed countries, as appropriate, and targeted special and differential treatment that responds to the development needs of individual countries. (b) Work towards concluding the necessary reform of the WTO to improve all its functions and effectively address the challenges facing global trade. (c) Facilitate access to the WTO, especially for developing countries, and promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation.

Action 6. We will invest in people to end poverty and strengthen trust and social cohesion.

25. We express our deep concern at persistent inequalities within and between countries and at the slow pace of progress towards improving the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere, including people in vulnerable situations. We must meet the Sustainable Development Goals for all segments of society and leave no one behind, including through the localization of sustainable development. We decide to: (a) Secure an ambitious outcome at the World Social Summit entitled the Second World Summit for Social Development in 2025.

(b) Promote universal health coverage, increase access to quality, inclusive education and lifelong learning, including in emergencies, and improve opportunities for decent work for all, universal access to social protection to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities. (c) Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and support developing countries to plan and implement just, safe, healthy, accessible, resilient and sustainable cities.

(d) Accelerate efforts to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all and substantially increase the share of renewable energy.

(e) Maximize the positive contribution of migrants to the sustainable development of origin, transit, destination and host
countries and strengthen international partnerships and global cooperation for safe, orderly and regular migration to comprehensively address the drivers of irregular migration and ensure the safety, dignity and human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status.

(f) Address and promote the prevention of water scarcity and build resilience to drought to achieve a world in which water is a sustainable resource and ensure the availability and sustainable management of clean and safe water, sanitation and hygiene for all.

Action 7. We will strengthen our efforts to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels and uphold human
rights and fundamental freedoms.

26. We reaffirm the need to build peaceful just and inclusive societies that provide equal access to justice and that are based on respect for human rights, on effective rule of law and good governance at all levels and on transparent and effective and accountable institutions. We reaffirm that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and that all human
rights must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. We decide to:

(a) Respect, protect and fulfill all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, promote the effective rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal justice for all and develop good governance at all levels and transparency, including , effective and accountable institutions at all levels.

(b) Promote and protect human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as interrelated and mutually reinforcing, while recognizing that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contains a pledge to leave no one behind and envisages universal respect and promotion of human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination.

Action 8. We will achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls as crucial contribution to progress across all the Sustainable Development Goals and targets.

27. We recognize that the achievement of full human potential and sustainable development is not possible if women and girls are denied full human rights and opportunities. Sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth and sustainable development can only be realized when all women, adolescent girls and boys have their full human rights respected, protected and fulfilled. We decide to:

(a) Take bold, ambitious, accelerated, just and transformative actions to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all women and girls. (b) Urgently remove all legal, social and economic barriers to achieve gender equality and ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.

(c) Take targeted and accelerated action to eradicate all forms of violence and harassment against all women and girls, including sexual and gender-based violence.

(d) Significantly increase investments to close the gender gap, including in the care and support economy, acknowledging the linkage between poverty and gender inequality and the need to strengthen support for institutions in relation to gender equality and the empowerment of women.

(e) Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance, natural resources, and appropriate new technology, in accordance with national laws.

(f) Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.

Action 9. We will strengthen our actions to address climate change.

28. We are deeply concerned at the current slow pace of progress in addressing climate change, the continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions recognizing the importance of the means of implementation and support for developing countries and the increasing frequency, intensity and scale of the adverse impacts of climate change, in particular on developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. In pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and of the Paris Agreement, we reaffirm the importance of accelerating action in this critical decade on the basis of the best available science, reflecting equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. We emphasize that the impact of climate change will be much lower at the temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared with 2 degrees Celsius. We decide to:

(a) Welcome the decisions adopted at the twenty-eighth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the decisions adopted under the “UAE Consensus” that includes the outcome of the first global stocktake of the Paris Agreement, at the fifth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement.

(b) Reaffirm our resolve to set, at COP 29, a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries.

(c) Come forward in our next nationally determined contributions with ambitious, economy-wide emission reduction targets, covering all greenhouse gases, sectors and categories and aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, as informed by the latest science, in the light of different national circumstances, while reaffirming the nationally determined nature of nationally determined contributions and in line with article 4 of the Paris Agreement.

(d) Significantly enhance international cooperation and the international enabling environment to stimulate ambition in the next round of nationally determined contributions.

(e) Accelerate the development, transfer and deployment of clean and renewable energy technologies, including to triple renewable energy capacity globally, and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, as well as accelerate the development and deployment of other zero and low-emission technologies and transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.

(f) Recognize that adaptation finance will have to be significantly scaled up beyond the decision to double adaptation finance, to support the urgent and evolving need to accelerate adaptation and build resilience in developing countries, while emphasizing that finance, capacity building and technology transfer are critical enablers of climate action and noting that scaling up the provision and mobilization of new and additional grant-based, highly concessional finance and non-debt instruments remains essential to supporting developing countries, particularly as they transition in a just and equitable manner.

(g) Further operationalize and capitalize the new funding arrangements, including the Fund, for responding to loss and damage.

(h) Protect everyone on earth through universal coverage of multi-hazard early warning systems by 2027, including through the accelerated implementation of the Early Warnings for All initiative.

Action 10. We will accelerate our efforts to restore, protect, conserve and sustainably use the environment.

29. We are deeply concerned about rapid environmental degradation, and we recognize the urgent need for a fundamental shift in our approach in order to achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature. We must conserve, restore and sustainably use our planet's ecosystems and natural resources to support the health and well-being of present and future generations. We will address the interlinked causes and adverse impacts of climate change, sea-level rise, biodiversity loss, pollution, water scarcity, floods, desertification, land degradation, drought, deforestation and sand and dust storms. We decide to:

(a) Achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature, conserve and sustainably use our planet's resources and reverse the trends of environmental degradation.

(b) Take ambitious action to improve the health, productivity, sustainable use and resilience of the ocean and their ecosystems, and conserve and sustainably use and restore seas and freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains, glaciers and drylands and protect, conserve and restore biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife.

(c) Promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, including sustainable lifestyles, and circular economy approaches as a pathway to achieving sustainable consumption and production patterns, and zero waste initiatives.

(d) Accelerate efforts to address the pollution of air, land and soil, freshwater and the ocean, including the sound management of chemicals, and work towards the conclusion of an ambitious international-legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment , by the end of 2024.

(e) Deliver on our agreed commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and implement all multilateral environmental agreements.

Action 11. We will protect and promote culture and sport as integral components of sustainable development.

30. We recognize that culture as well as sport offer individuals and communities a strong sense of identity and fosters social cohesion. We also recognize that sport can contribute to individuals' and communities' health and well-being. Culture as well as sport therefore have the potential to be important enablers of sustainable development. We decide to:

(a) Ensure that culture as well as sport can contribute to more effective, inclusive, equitable and sustainable development, and integrate culture into economic, social and environmental development policies and strategies and ensure adequate public investment in the protection and promotion of culture.

(b) Engage constructively on the return or restitution of cultural property of spiritual, historical and cultural value to countries of origin, and strongly encourage relevant private entities to similarly engage, as required, and strengthen international cooperation on this issue, in line with relevant international conventions and national legislation. (c) Promote and support intercultural and inter-religious dialogue to strengthen social cohesion and contribute to sustainable development.

Action 12. We will plan for the future and strengthen our collective efforts to turbocharge the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030 and beyond.

31. We remain steadily focused and committed to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.
We will sustain our efforts to build the future we want by addressing existing, new and emerging challenges to sustainable development by 2030 and beyond. We decide to:

(a) Significantly advance progress towards the full and timely achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by 2030, including through strengthening the role of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) as the main
platform for the follow up and review of the sustainable development agenda.

(b) Invite the HLPF, under the auspices of the General Assembly, to consider in September 2027 how we will advance sustainable development by 2030 and beyond, as a priority and at the center of our work.

Support Take Down The Beast

2. International Peace and Security

32. The global security landscape is undergoing profound transformation. We are concerned about the increasing and diverse threats to international peace and security, including acts of aggression, and the growing risks of a nuclear war which could pose an existential threat to humanity. Amidst this changing context, we remain committed to establishing a just and lasting peace. We reaffirm our commitment to act in accordance with international law, including the Charter and its purposes and principles, and to fulfill our obligations in good faith. We reiterate our full respect for the sovereign equality of all Member States, the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and our obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, our commitment to settle international disputes by peaceful means. We also reaffirm our commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

33. The United Nations has an indispensable role in the maintenance of international peace and security. Our efforts to urgently address accumulating and diverse threats to international peace and security, on land, sea, in the air, in outer space and in cyberspace, should be supported by efforts to rebuild trust, strengthen solidarity, and deepen international cooperation, including through the
intensified use of diplomacy. We will take into account the recommendations in the New Agenda for Peace.

Action 13. We will redouble our efforts to build and sustain peaceful, inclusive and just societies and address the root causes of conflicts.

34. We recognize the interdependence of international peace and security, sustainable development and human rights and we reaffirm the importance of the rule of law. We are concerned about the potential impact that the global increase in military expenditures could have on investments in sustainable development and sustaining peace. We decide to:

(a) Strengthen resilience and comprehensively address the drivers and root causes of armed conflict, violence, and instability and their consequences, including by accelerating the investment in and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

(b) Provide equal access to justice, protect civic space and uphold human rights for all, including through promoting the culture of peace, inclusion, tolerance and peaceful coexistence, eradicating religious discrimination, countering racism, racial
discrimination and xenophobia in all their manifestations and by enhancing human security.

(c) Ensure that military spending does not compromise investment in sustainable development and building sustainable peace and request the Secretary-General to provide analysis on the impact of the global increase in military expenditure on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by the end of the seventy-ninth session.

Action 14. We will protect all civilians in armed conflict.

35. We condemn in the strongest terms the devastating impact of armed conflict on civilians, civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage, and we are particularly concerned about the disproportionate impact of violence on women, children, persons with disabilities and other persons in vulnerable situations in armed conflict. Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and deliberate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure are prohibited under international law and we reaffirm our commitment to our obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international refugee law. We decide to:

(a) Take concrete and practical measures to protect all civilians in armed conflict, in particular persons in vulnerable situations.

(b) Accelerate the implementation of our commitments under the children and armed conflict agenda.

(c) Restrict or refrain, as appropriate, from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas when their use may be expected to cause harm to civilians or civilian objects, including essential civilian infrastructure, schools, medical facilities and places of worship.

(d) Enable safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access and assistance, and fully respect the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, in accordance with international humanitarian law and the General Assembly resolutions on strengthening the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations.

(e) Respect and protect humanitarian personnel and United Nations and associated personnel, including national and locally recruited personnel, their facilities, equipment, transports and supplies, in accordance with our obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law.

(f) Respect and protect journalists, media professionals and associated personnel working in situations of armed conflict and reaffirm that they shall be considered as civilians in such situations in accordance with international humanitarian law.

(g) Redouble our efforts to end impunity and ensure accountability for atrocity crimes and other gross violations, such as the use of starvation of civilians as a method of war and gender-based violence, including conflict-related sexual violence.

(h) Commit to support timely and decisive action, in particular by the Security Council and General Assembly, aimed at preventing and ending genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

(i) Invites Member States to enact national legislation, regulations and procedures, where they do not already exist, to exercise control over the international transfer of conventional arms and military equipment that manages the risks that such transfers could facilitate, contribute or lead to violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and to ensure that such legislation,
regulations and procedures are consistent with the obligations of States under applicable international treaties to which they are parties, including the Arms Trade Treaty.

Action 15. We will ensure people affected by humanitarian emergencies receive the support they need.

36. We express grave concern at the unprecedented number of people affected by humanitarian emergencies, including those experiencing forced and increasingly protracted displacement and those afflicted by hunger,
acute food insecurity, famine and famine-like conditions. We decide to:

(a) Strengthen our efforts to prevent, anticipate and mitigate the impact of humanitarian emergencies on people in need, while paying special attention to the needs of persons in the most vulnerable situations.

(b) Address the root causes of forced and protracted displacement, including the mass displacement of populations, and implement and facilitate access to durable solutions for internally displaced persons, refugees and stateless persons, including through equitable international burden and responsibility sharing, and support to host communities, and with full respect for the principle of non-refoulement of refugees.

(c) Eliminate the scourge of hunger, acute food insecurity, famine and famine-like conditions in armed conflict now and for future generations, deploying all the knowledge, resources and capacities at our disposal, including by fulfilling our obligations under international humanitarian law to remove all restrictions on the provision of humanitarian assistance and ensure people in need receive vital assistance, strengthening early warning, developing social protection systems, and taking preventive measures that builds the resilience of communities at risk.

(d) Significantly increase financial and other forms of support to countries and communities facing humanitarian emergencies,
including host communities, inter alia by scaling up timely and predictable funding and innovative and anticipatory financing mechanisms, as well as by strengthening partnerships with International Financial Institutions in order to prevent, reduce and respond to humanitarian suffering and assist those in need.

Action 16. We will promote cooperation and understanding between Member States, defuse tensions, seek the peaceful settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts.

37. We reaffirm our commitment to preventive diplomacy, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the importance of dialogue

between states. We recognize the United Nations' role in preventive diplomacy and the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the importance of the United Nations' partnership with regional and sub-regional organizations to prevent and resolve conflicts and disputes between Member States in accordance with the Charter. We decide to:

(a) Reaffirm our obligations under international law, including the Charter and its purposes and principles.

(b) Take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to international peace and security, revitalize and

implement existing tools and mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes, in accordance with the Charter.

(c) Develop and implement new mechanisms as required for the pacific settlement of disputes, confidence-building, early warning and

crisis management, at the sub-regional, regional, and international level to address new and emerging threats to international

peace and security.

(d) Pursue and apply confidence building measures to reduce tensions and promote international peace and security. (e) Intensify the use of

diplomacy and mediation to ease tensions in situations which may pose a threat to international peace and security, including through early diplomatic efforts. (f) Urge the Secretary-General to actively use the good offices of the

Secretary-General and ensure the United Nations is adequately equipped to lead and support mediation and preventive diplomacy and encourage the Secretary-General to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter that may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. (g) Support regional and sub-regional organizations' role in diplomacy, mediation and the
pacific settlement of disputes, and strengthen the coordination

and cooperation between these organizations and the United Nations in this regard.

Action 17. We will fulfill our obligation to comply with the decisions and uphold the mandate of the International Court of Justice in any case to which our State is a party.

38. We recognize the positive contribution of the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, including

in adjudicating disputes among States. We reaffirm the obligation of all States to comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in cases to which they are parties. We decide to:

(a) Take appropriate steps to ensure that the International Court of Justice can fully and effectively discharge its mandate and promote awareness of its role in the peaceful settlement of disputes, while respecting that parties to any dispute may also seek other peaceful means of their own choice.

Action 18. We will build and sustain peace.

39. We recognize that Member States bear the primary responsibility for preventing conflict and building peace in their countries, and that national efforts to build and sustain peace contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Adequate, predictable and sustained financing for peacebuilding is essential, and we welcome the recent General Assembly decision to increase the resources available to the United Nations' Peacebuilding Fund. We decide to:

(a) Deliver on our commitment in the 2030 Agenda to significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

(b) Redouble our efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls, including gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence.

(c) Combat racism and eliminate racial discrimination, xenophobia and religious intolerance, and all other forms of intolerance and discrimination from our societies and promote inter-religious and intercultural dialogue.

(d) Strengthen and implement existing national prevention strategies and approaches to sustain peace, and develop them where they do not exist, on a voluntary basis and in accordance with national priorities, to address the root causes of violence and armed conflict.

(e) Provide assistance to States, upon their request, including through the Peacebuilding Commission and the entire United Nations system, in full conformity with national ownership and needs, to build national capacity to develop and implement their nationally-owned prevention strategies or approaches and address the root causes of violence and conflict in their countries, including through sharing best practices and lessons learned.

(f) Address the risks associated with small arms and light weapons, their parts, and ammunition, or associated ammunition including through national prevention strategies and approaches.

(g) Address the risks to sustaining peace posed by disinformation, misinformation, hate speech and content inciting harm, including content disseminated through digital platforms, while respecting the right to freedom of expression and to privacy and ensuring unhindered access to the internet in accordance with international law, domestic legislation and national policies.

(h) Pursue stronger alignment between the United Nations, international and regional financial institutions and the needs of Member States affected by armed conflict and violence and the impacts of regional conflict, to support their economic stability, national prevention and peacebuilding efforts, in line with their respective mandates and in full conformity with national ownership.

Action 19. We will accelerate the implementation of our commitments on women, peace and security.

40. We recognize the role of women as agents of peace. The full, equal, safe, and meaningful participation of women in decision-making at all levels of peace and security, including conflict prevention and resolution, mediation and in peace operations, is essential to achieve sustainable peace. We condemn in the strongest terms the increased levels of all forms of violence against women and girls, who are particularly at risk of violence in armed conflict, post-conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies. We decide to:

(a) Redouble our efforts to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, including by preventing setbacks and tackling the persistent barriers to the implementation of the women and peace and security agenda, and ensure that initiatives to advance these efforts are adequately financed.

(b) Deliver on our commitments to ensure that women can fully, equally, safely and meaningfully participate in all United Nations-led mediation and peace processes. (c) Take concrete steps to eliminate and prevent the full range of threats and human rights violations and abuses experienced by women and girls in armed conflict, post- conflict situations and humanitarian emergencies, including gender-based violence and conflict related sexual violence.

(d) Accelerate our ongoing efforts to ensure the full, equal, safe and meaningful participation of women in peace operations.

Action 20. We will accelerate the implementation of our commitments on youth, peace and security.

41. We recognize that the full, effective, safe and meaningful participation of youth is critical to maintain and promote international peace and security. We decide to:

(a) Take concrete measures to ensure that youth can participate in decision-making at all levels of peace and security, including by increasing opportunities for them to participate in relevant intergovernmental deliberations at the United Nations.

(b) Strengthen and implement existing youth, peace and security national and regional roadmaps to deliver on our commitments, and develop them where they do not exist, on a voluntary basis. (c) Request the Secretary-General to carry out the second independent progress study on youth's positive contribution to peace processes and conflict resolution by the end of 80th session.

Action 21. We will address adverse climate and environmental impacts that could contribute to the onset or escalation of conflict.

42. The adverse effects of climate change, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, desertification, water scarcity and water
risks can exacerbate social tensions, instability and economic insecurity, increase humanitarian and socio-economic needs, and, in
some cases, contribute to the onset or escalation of conflict.
Countries affected by armed conflict often lack the capacity, resources and resilience to respond to the adverse effects of climate change and other environmental challenges. We decide to:

(a) Ensure that relevant United Nations' intergovernmental bodies consider and address within their respective mandates, the implications for international peace and security of the adverse effects of climate change, loss of biodiversity, desertification, water scarcity and water risks and other environmental challenges where relevant.

(b) Urgently implement agreed commitments on climate change, the environment, and sustainable development, within the respective mandate of each intergovernmental body, including financial commitments to support developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Action 22. We will adapt peace operations to better respond to existing challenges and new realities.

43. United Nations peace operations, including peacekeeping operations and special political missions, are critical tools to maintain international peace and security. They face increasingly complex challenges and urgently need to adapt, taking into account the needs of all Member States, troop- and police-contributing countries, and the priorities and responsibilities of host countries. Peace operations can only succeed when political solutions are actively pursued and they have predictable, adequate and sustained financing. We reaffirm the importance of enforcement actions authorized by the Security Council, to maintain or restore international peace and security. In this regard, we support enhanced collaboration between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organizations, particularly the African Union. We decide to:

(a) Call on the Security Council to ensure that peace operations are anchored in and guided by political strategies, deployed with clear, sequenced and prioritized mandates that are realistic and achievable, exit strategies and viable transition plans, and as part of a comprehensive approach to sustaining peace in full compliance with international law and the Charter.

(b) Request the Secretary-General to undertake a review on the future of all forms of United Nations' peace operations, taking into

account lessons learned from previous and ongoing reform processes, and providing strategic and action-oriented recommendations for the consideration of Member States on how the United Nations' toolbox can be adapted to meet evolving needs, to allow for more agile, tailored responses to existing, emerging and future challenges.

(c) Ensure that peace operations engage at the earliest possible stage in planning transitions with host countries, the United Nations country team, and relevant national stakeholders.

Share

Leave a comment

(d) Take concrete steps to ensure the safety and security of the personnel of peace operations, improve their access to health facilities, including mental health services, and address the risks posed to them by misinformation and disinformation.

(e) Ensure that enforcement actions are accompanied by an inclusive political strategy and other non-military approaches and address the root causes of conflict.

(f) Encourage the Secretary-General to arrange regular high-level meetings with relevant regional organizations to discuss matters pertaining to peace operations, peace building, and conflicts.

(g) Ensure adequate, predictable and sustainable financing for African Union-led peace support operations mandated by the Security Council as agreed by the Security Council on 21 December 2023.

Action 23. We will address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety.

44. We recognize the need to address the serious impact of threats to maritime security and safety and to ensure that the world's waterways are safe, open for trade and enable all States to thrive. All efforts to address threats to maritime security and safety must be carried out in accordance with international law, including particularly as reflected in the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, recognizing the pre-eminent contribution provided by the Convention to the

strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly relations among all nations, and taking into account other relevant instruments that are consistent with the Convention. We decide to:

(a) Enhance international cooperation and engagement at the global, regional, subregional and bilateral levels to combat all threats to maritime security and safety, including threats to critical infrastructure and disruptions to trade and economic activities and maritime interests, in accordance with international law. (b) Promote information sharing among States and building capacity to detect, prevent and suppress such threats in accordance with international law.

Action 24. We will pursue a future free from terrorism.

45. We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations committed by whomever, wherever, whenever. We reaffirm that all terrorist acts are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivation or how their perpetrators may seek to justify them. We highlight the importance of putting measures in place to counter the dissemination of terrorist propaganda, preventing and suppressing the flow of financing and material means for terrorist activities, as well as recruitment activities of terrorist organizations. We reaffirm that terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, civilization, or ethnic group. We will redouble our efforts to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, prevent and combat terrorism, build States' capacity to prevent and combat terrorism, strengthen the role of the United Nations system. The promotion and protection of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and respect for human rights for all and the rule of law are the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism. We decide to:

(a) Implement a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to prevent and combat terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism, including by addressing the drivers of terrorism, in accordance with international law.

(b) Address the threat posed by the misuse of new and emerging technologies, including digital technologies and financial instruments, for terrorist purposes.

(c) Enhance coordination of the United Nations' counter-terrorism efforts and between cooperation the United Nations and relevant regional and sub-regional organizations to prevent and combat terrorism in accordance with international law, while considering revitalizing efforts towards the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.

Action 25. We will prevent and combat transnational organized crime and related illicit financial flows.

46. Transnational organized crime and related illicit financial flows can pose a serious threat to international peace and security, human rights and sustainable development, including through the possible links that may exist in some cases between transnational organized crime and terrorist groups. We decide to:

(a) Scale up efforts in addressing transnational organized crime and related illicit financial flows through comprehensive strategies, including prevention, early detection, investigation, protection and law enforcement, tackling the drivers, and engagement with relevant stakeholders.

(b) Strengthen international cooperation to prevent and combat transnational organized crime in all its forms, including when committed through the use of information and communications technology systems.

Action 26. We will steadily advance our efforts to achieve the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

47. A nuclear war would visit devastation upon all humankind and could pose an existential threat to humanity. We must make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and we therefore remind that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. We recognize that the verifiable, irreversible and total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against their use. We will uphold our respective binding obligations and international commitments. We reiterate our deep concern over the state of nuclear disarmament. We reaffirm the inalienable right of all countries to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, in accordance with their respective obligations. We decide to:

(a) Recommit to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons in the context of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

(b) Undertake further efforts, especially by the nuclear-weapon States, to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons, recognizing that the objective of the efforts of states in the disarmament process is general and complete disarmament under effective international control, including by taking steps to critically review the role and significance of nuclear weapons in all military and security concepts, doctrines and policies and avoiding a nuclear arms race.

(c) Make every effort, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, and to refrain from any inflammatory rhetoric concerning the use of nuclear weapons.

(d) Call upon the nuclear-weapon States, to honor and respect all existing security assurances undertaken by them, and to provide assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear- weapon States, including in connection with the treaties and relevant protocols of nuclear weapon-free zones.

(e) Commit to strengthening the disarmament and non-proliferation architecture and work to prevent any erosion of existing international norms and take all possible steps to prevent nuclear war.

(f) Seek to accelerate through concrete actions the full and effective implementation of existing, respective nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments, in line with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its agreed review outcome documents, including by adhering to relevant international legal instruments and through the pursuit of nuclear weapon free zones to enhance international peace and security and the achievement of a nuclear-weapons free world.

Action 27. We will uphold our disarmament obligations and commitments.

48. We express our serious concern at the increasing number of actions that are contrary to existing international norms and non-compliance with obligations in the field of disarmament, arms control and non- proliferation. We will respect international law that applies to weapons, means and methods of warfare, and support progressive efforts to effectively eradicate the illicit trade of arms. We recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening the role of the United Nations' disarmament machinery. Any use of chemical and biological weapons by anyone, anywhere, and under any circumstances is unacceptable. We call for full compliance with and implementation of relevant treaties. We reaffirm our shared determination to completely exclude the possibility of biological agents and toxins being used as weapons and to uphold relevant agreements in this regard. We decide to:

(a) Revitalize the role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament, including by recommending that the General Assembly hold a fourth special session dedicated to disarmament (SSOD-IV).

(b) Pursue a world free from chemical and biological weapons and ensure that those responsible for any use of these weapons are identified and held accountable.

(c) Address emerging and evolving biological risks through improving processes to anticipate, prevent, coordinate and prepare for such risks, whether caused by natural, accidental or deliberate release of biological agents.

(d) Identify, examine and develop effective measures, including possible legally-binding measures, to strengthen and institutionalize international norms and instruments against the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, retention, and use of biological agents and toxins as weapons. (e)

Strengthen measures to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors.

(f) Redouble our efforts to implement our respective obligations under relevant international instruments to prohibit or restrict conventional weapons due to their humanitarian impact and take steps to promote all aspects of
mine action.

(g) Strengthen our national and international efforts to combat, prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects. (h)

Address existing gaps in through-life conventional ammunition management to reduce the dual risks of unplanned conventional ammunition explosions and the diversion and illicit trafficking of conventional ammunition to unauthorized containers, including to criminals, organized criminal groups and terrorists.

Action 28. We will address the potential risks and seize the opportunities associated with new and emerging technologies.

49. We recognize that rapid technological change presents risks and opportunities to our collective efforts to maintain international peace and security. International law, including the Charter, will guide our approach to addressing these risks. We decide to:

(a) Advance discussions to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects, which engages all relevant stakeholders, consistent with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, with a view to agreeing potential political commitments and legally-binding instruments with appropriate and effective provisions for verification.

(b) Advance with urgency discussions on lethal autonomous weapons systems through the existing intergovernmental process to develop an instrument, without prejudging its nature, and other possible measures to address emerging technologies in the area of lethal weapons autonomous systems, recognizing that international humanitarian law continues to apply fully autonomous to all weapons systems, including the potential development and use of lethal weapons systems that select targets and apply force without human control or oversight.

Support Take Down The Beast

(c) Request the Secretary-General to update Member States on new and emerging technologies and their implications for international peace and security in order to support Member States' future consideration of these issues.

Action 29. We will address the potential risks posed by the misuse of digital technologies, including information and communication technologies and artificial intelligence.

50. We are concerned about the existing and potential risks to international peace and security posed by the misuse of digital technologies, including information and communications technologies and artificial intelligence. We decide to:

(a) Uphold international law, including the Charter, as well as implement agreed norms, rules and principles of responsible State behavior in the use and misuse of information communications technologies (ICTs).

(b) Refrain from conducting or knowingly supporting information and communications technology activity contrary to our obligations under international law that intentionally damages critical infrastructure or otherwise
impairs the use and operation of critical infrastructure that provides services to the public.

(c) Enhance international cooperation and assistance to address potential threats arising from misuse of digital technologies through capacity building with a view to closing the digital divide between developed and developing countries.

(d) Identify and address the existing and potential risks associated with the military applications of artificial intelligence and ways to harness the opportunities throughout their lifecycle, in consultation with relevant stakeholders.

3. Science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation

51. Science, technology and innovation have the potential to accelerate the realization of the United Nations' aspirations across all three pillars of its work. We will only realize this potential through international
cooperation to harness the benefits and take bold, ambitious and decisive steps to bridge the growing divide within and between developed and developing countries and accelerate progress on the 2030 Agenda. Billions of people, especially in developing countries, do not have meaningful access to critical life-changing

technologies. If we are to do good on our promise to leave no one behind, sharing science, technology and innovation is essential. Innovations and scientific breakthroughs that can make our planet more sustainable and our countries more prosperous and resilient should be affordable and accessible to all.

52. At the same time, we must responsibly manage the potential risks posed by science and technology, in particular the ways in which science, technology and innovation can perpetuate and deepen divides, in particular gender divides, and patterns of discrimination and inequality within and between countries and adversely impact the enjoyment of human rights and progress on sustainable development. We will deepen our partnerships with relevant stakeholders, especially the international financial institutions, the private sector,

the technical and academic communities, and civil society, and we will ensure science, technology and innovation is a catalyst for a more inclusive, equitable, sustainable, and prosperous world for all, in which all human rights are fully respected.

53. Digital and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, play a significant role as enablers of sustainable development and are dramatically changing our world. They offer huge potential for progress for the benefit of people and planet today and in the future. We are determined to realize this potential and manage
the risks through enhanced international cooperation, engagement with relevant stakeholders, and by promoting an inclusive, responsible and sustainable digital future. [We have annexed a Global Digital Compact to this Pact in this regard].

Action 30. We will seize the opportunities presented by science, technology and innovation for the benefit of people and planet.

54. We will be guided by the principles of equity and solidarity, and promote the responsible and ethical use of science, technology and innovation. We decide to:

(a) Foster and promote an open, fair and inclusive environment for scientific and technological development and cooperation worldwide, including through actively building trust in science and global collaboration on innovation.

(b) Increase the use of science, scientific knowledge and scientific evidence in policy-making and ensure that complex global challenges are addressed through inter-disciplinary collaboration. (c)

Encourage talent mobility and circulation, including through educational programs, and support developing countries to retain talent and prevent a brain drain while providing suitable educational and working conditions and opportunities for the workforce.

Action 31. We will scale up the means of implementation to developing countries to strengthen their science, technology and innovation capacities.

55. Science, technology and innovation are critical to support and enable sustainable growth and climate action and accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It is imperative that we collaborate to bridge the science, technology and innovation gap within and between developed and developing countries, to support developing countries to peacefully harness science, technology and innovation to achieve sustainable development, particularly those in special situations, as well as those facing specific challenges. We reiterate the need to accelerate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on mutually agreed terms. We decide to:

(a) Ensure science, technology and innovation contributes to our efforts to eradicate poverty in all its forms and dimensions and hunger, and to reduce inequalities, in addition to areas such as food security and nutrition, health, education, social protection, water and sanitation, energy, climate and environment.

(b) Increase efforts to support developing countries, in particular by developed countries and those developing countries in a position to do so, with capacity-building in science, technology and innovation through policy exchanges, knowledge sharing, technical assistance, financing, joint international research and personnel training tailored to specific needs, policies and priorities of developing countries.

(c) Support the development, deployment and sustainable use of emerging and open source technologies and support policies towards open science and open innovation and know-how for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, especially in developing countries.

(d) Strengthen North-South cooperation, South-South and triangular cooperation, while taking into account different national circumstances, to build capacity for and improve access to science, technology and innovation, and to increase resources for the implementation of technical and scientific initiatives .

(e) Scale up financing from all sources for scientific research and research infrastructure that supports sustainable development and increase opportunities for research cooperation, especially in developing countries.

(f) Attract and support private sector investment in science, technology and innovation, and deepen public- private partnerships by fostering a conducive environment in developing countries that encourages investment and entrepreneurship, develops local innovation ecosystems, and promotes decent work, and by ensuring that innovation can reach global markets.

(g) Promote and maintain stable and resilient global supply chains to make scientific and technological products and services more accessible to all.

Action 32. We will uphold intellectual property rights to support developing countries achieve sustainable development.

56. We recognize the importance of intellectual property rights to progress on science, technology and innovation and the achievement of sustainable development. We decide to:

(a) Protect and enforce intellectual property rights to promote technological innovation, build trust and contribute to the transfer and dissemination of technology on mutually agreed terms.

(b) Uphold the rights and obligations enshrined in relevant agreements related to trade and intellectual property rights, including the right of Member States to use the flexibilities contained therein, recognizing the need to support developing countries in benefiting from scientific and technological innovations.

Action 33. We will ensure that science, technology and innovation contribute to the full enjoyment of human rights by all.

57. We recognize the opportunities and risks presented by science, technology and innovation to promoting, protecting and fulfilling all human rights. We decide to:

(a) Ensure that all scientific and technological research is conducted in a responsible and ethical manner that protects and promotes all human rights, and protects the autonomy, freedom and safety of scientific researchers.

(b) Integrate a human rights perspective into regulatory and norm-setting processes for new and emerging technologies and call on the private sector to respect human rights and uphold ethical principles in the development and use of new and emerging technologies.

(c) Ensure that persons in vulnerable situations benefit from and fully and meaningfully participate in the development and application of science, technology and innovation.

(d) Seize on opportunities provided by new and emerging technologies to empower and advance equity for persons with disabilities, including through promoting the availability of assistive technologies.

Action 34. We will ensure that science, technology and innovation improve gender equality and the lives of all women and girls.

58. Science, technology and innovation can improve gender equality and women's and girls' lives. We are seriously concerned about the gender digital divide and that rapid technological change can exacerbate existing gender inequality and present serious risks to all women and girls. We decide to:

(a) Address barriers to full equal and meaningful access to and participation and leadership in science, technology and innovation for all women and girls, including through improving education, employment and research opportunities for women and girls in areas such as science, technology, innovation, mathematics and engineering.

(b) Address gender-related risks and challenges emerging from the use of technologies, including all forms of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, trafficking in persons, harassment, bias and discrimination against all women and girls that occur through, or are amplified by, the use of technology, including against women migrant workers.

Action 35. We will protect, build on and complement Indigenous, traditional and local knowledge.

59. We recognize the need for science, technology and innovation to be adapted and made relevant to local needs and circumstances, including Indigenous Peoples, local communities and traditional afro-descendant populations, in line with the principle of free, prior and informed consent. We decide to:

(a) Foster synergies between science and technology and traditional, local, Afro-descendant and Indigenous knowledge, systems, practices and capacities.

Action 36. We will support the Secretary-General to strengthen the United Nations' role in supporting international cooperation in science, technology and innovation.

60. We recognize the critical role of the United Nations in science, technology and innovation. We take note of the establishment of the Secretary-General's Scientific Advisory Board to provide independent scientific advice. We request the Secretary-General to:

(a) Strengthen the United Nations' capacities to leverage science, technology and innovation in the work of the Organization, including planning, futures thinking and foresight, and to monitor and measure ongoing global progress to bridge the science and technology gap within and between developed and developing countries.

(b) Support national governments to leverage science and technology for sustainable development, including by exploring ways to strengthen the capacity and expertise of United Nations Country Teams.

4. Youth and Future Generations

61. Today's generation of children and young people is the largest in history, with most of them living in developing countries. They are critical agents of positive change and we welcome the important contributions of young people to peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. However, across our world, millions of children and young people are deprived of the conditions they need to reach their full potential and fulfill their human rights, especially those in vulnerable situations. Children and young persons continue to live in extreme poverty, without access to critical, basic services and respect for their fundamental rights.
We recognize that, together with future generations, they will live with the consequences of our actions and our inaction. We will invest
in and promote engagement by young people at national and international levels to secure a better future for all.

62. We recognize that children and youth are distinct groups from future generations. We must ensure that decision-making and policy-making today takes greater account of the needs and interests of the generations to come, and that they are balanced with the needs and interests of current generations. [We have annexed a Declaration on Future Generations to the Pact for the Future that details our commitments in this regard].

Action 37. We will invest in the social and economic development of children and young people so they can reach their full potential.

63. We stress the importance of investing in, and ensuring equitable access to, essential services for all children and young people, especially health, education and social protection, to advance their social and economic development. To fulfill their full potential and secure decent, productive work and quality employment, young people must have access to safe, inclusive, equitable and quality education opportunities, including in emergencies, throughout their lives that equip them with the knowledge, skills and capabilities they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. We decide to:

(a) Scale up investment from all sources in essential services for young people and ensure that their specific needs and priorities are integrated in national, regional and international development strategies, ensure that services are accessible to all young persons and invite the Secretary-General to update Member States on the proposal for a Global Youth Investment platform to attract and better finance youth-related programming at the country level.

(b) Accelerate efforts to achieve universal health coverage to ensure all young people enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including immunizations and vaccinations and sexual and reproductive health, and address all the challenges faced by developing countries to achieve these goals.

(c) Support developing countries to significantly increase investment from all sources in education and skills, especially early childhood and girls education and skills, to build inclusive, accessible and resilient education systems and life-long learning opportunities that are tailored to the needs of young people and children today and in the future by enhancing curricula, improving teachers' professional development, harnessing digital technologies and improving access to technical and vocational training to help young people contribute to their societies.

(d) Create decent jobs and livelihoods for youth, especially in developing countries and particularly for young women and young people in vulnerable situations, while dismantling inequalities in the care economy, and establish and ensure young people's access to universal, adequate, comprehensive, sustainable and nationally- owned social protection systems.

(e) Empower, encourage and support young people to pursue entrepreneurship and innovation and transform their ideas into viable business opportunities.

(f) Implement family-friendly and family-oriented policies towards achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all girls and their enjoyment of all their human rights.

Action 38. We will promote, protect and respect the human rights of all young people and foster social inclusion and integration.

64. We reaffirm the importance of ensuring the full enjoyment of the rights of all young persons, protect them from violence, and foster social inclusion and integration especially the poorest, persons in vulnerable situations, including afro-descendant populations, and those who face discrimination in multiple and overlapping ways. We decide to:

(a) Step-up our fight against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and all forms of intolerance that impact young people and hinder their ability to fulfill their potential, and counter religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence .

(b) Intensify international, regional, and national efforts to take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labor, end modern slavery and trafficking in persons, especially women and children, and eliminate all forms of child labor.

(c) Address the challenges faced by all young women and girls, including by combating gender stereotypes and negative social norms and eliminating discrimination, harassment, all forms of violence against young women and girls, including sexual and gender-based violence, and harmful practices , including female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage.

(d) Enhance inclusion and eliminate all barriers that hinder young persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum autonomy, independence and full inclusion and participation in all aspects of life and invest in assistive technologies that can promote their full, effective and meaningful participation in society .

(e) Address the adverse impact of climate change and other environmental challenges that constitute threats to the ability of young persons to enjoy their human rights and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

(f) Strengthen intergenerational partnerships and solidarity among generations by promoting opportunities for voluntary, constructive and regular interaction between young and older persons in families, in the
workplace and in society-at-large.

Action 39. We will strengthen meaningful youth participation at the national level.

65. We commend the important contributions that young people are already making to the advancement of peace and security, sustainable development and human rights in their own countries. We can only meet the needs and aspirations of all young people, if we systematically listen to them, work with them, and provide them with meaningful opportunities to shape the future. We decide to:

(a) Encourage and support the establishment of mechanisms at the national level, where they do not exist, to consult with young people and provide them with meaningful opportunities to engage in national policymaking and decision-making processes supported, upon request, by the United Nations system, in line with national legislation and policies.

(b) Consider establishing intergenerational dialogues to build stronger partnerships between individuals of different age groups, including youth, and between governments and youth.

(c) Address the challenges and remove barriers that prevent full, meaningful and effective participation of all youth, including for young women, young persons with disabilities, and young persons of African descent and other young persons in vulnerable situations in national policy and decision- making, and improving their
representation in formal political structures.

(d) Support youth-led and youth-focused organizations, particularly through capacity-building.

Action 40. We will strengthen meaningful youth participation at the international level.

66. We welcome the progress made in promoting the meaningful engagement of youth in the United Nations.
We are determined to accelerate this work by ensuring more youth engagement in the work of the United Nations and by increasing the representativeness, effectiveness and impact of youth engagement at the United Nations. We decide to:

(a) Promote meaningful, inclusive and effective engagement of young people in relevant United Nations intergovernmental bodies and processes, where appropriate and in accordance with the rules of procedure and established practice, taking into account the principles of gender parity and balanced geographic representation and non -discrimination.

(b) Encourage the inclusion of youth, including youth delegates, in national delegations to the United Nations.

(c) Call for contributions to the United Nations Youth Fund in order to facilitate the participation of youth representatives from developing countries in the activities of the United Nations, taking into account the need for greater geographical balance in terms of youth representation, and in this regard requests the Secretary-General to take appropriate action to encourage contributions to the Fund, including by raising awareness of the Fund.

(d) Request the Secretary-General to continue to develop core principles, in consultation with Member States and young people, for meaningful, representative, inclusive and safe youth engagement in relevant intergovernmental processes and across the work of the United Nations, for the consideration of Member States.

5. Transforming global governance

67. Today, our multilateral system, built in the aftermath of the Second World War, is under unprecedented strain. He has
had remarkable achievements in the past eighty years. But we are not complacent about the future of our international order, and we know it cannot stand still. We will take action to strengthen and reinvigorate multilateralism and deepen international cooperation.
We reaffirm unwavering commitment to international law, including the Charter, to address global challenges, some of which could overwhelm and threaten all of humanity. A transformation in global governance is essential to ensure that the positive progress we have seen across all three pillars of the United Nations' work in recent decades does not unravel. We will not allow this to happen.

68. We must renew trust in global institutions by making them more representative of, and responsive to, today's world and more effective at delivering on the commitments that we have made to one another and our people. We renew our commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation, guided by the Charter and the principles of trust, equity, solidarity and universality. We will transform global governance and strengthen the multilateral system to help us achieve a world that is safe, peaceful, just, equal, inclusive, sustainable, and prosperous.

Action 41. We will transform global governance and reinvigorate the multilateral system to tackle the challenges, and seize the opportunities, of today and tomorrow.

69. We resolve to make the multilateral system, with the United Nations at its center, more:

(a) Effective and capable of delivering on our promises, with strengthened accountability, transparency and implementation mechanisms to ensure our commitments are met and to rebuild trust in global institutions.

(b) Prepared for the future, building capabilities and harnessing technology and data to anticipate risks, seize opportunities, act early and manage uncertainty.

(c) Just, democratic, equitable and representative of today's world to ensure that all Member States, especially developing countries, can meaningfully participate in global decision-making in multilateral institutions.

(d) Inclusive, to allow for the meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, while reaffirming the intergovernmental character of the United Nations and the unique and central role of States in meeting global challenges.

(e) Interconnected, to ensure that the multilateral system can draw together existing institutional capacities, work better as a system, overcome fragmentation and comprehensively address multidimensional, multisectoral challenges, while maximizing efficiencies.

(f) Financially stable, by ensuring adequate, sustainable and predictable financing for the United Nations, and to that end we commit to meet our financial obligations in full, on time and without conditions.

Action 42. We will reform the UN Security Council, recognizing the urgent need to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable.

70. In response to the growing urgency to increase the effectiveness of the United Nations' abilities to maintain international peace and security as set out in the UN Charter, we agree on the following guiding principles identified in the Intergovernmental Negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council (IGN) in accordance with decision 62/557 of the General Assembly as parameters for reform: (a) Redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority and, while treating Africa as a special case, improve the representation of the underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups, such as Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean.

(b) Enlarge the Security Council in order to be more representative of the current UN membership and reflective of the realities of the contemporary world and, taking into account our commitments of Sustainable Development Goal 16.8, increase representation of developing countries and small- and medium-sized countries -sized states. (c) Continue discussions on the issue of representation of cross-regional groups, taking into account that Small Island Developing States, Arab States, and others, such as the OIC, have been mentioned in the discussions of the IGN.

(d) Intensify efforts to find an agreement on the question of the categories of membership taking into account the discussions held in the IGN process. (e) The total number of members of an enlarged Council should ensure a balance between its representativeness and effectiveness. (f) The working methods should ensure the inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable functioning of an enlarged Council. (g) The question of the veto is a key element of Security Council reform. We will intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use. (h) As part of a comprehensive reform, the inclusion of a review clause should be considered to ensure that the Security Council continues over time to deliver on its mandate and remains fit for purpose.

Action 43. We will strengthen our efforts in the framework of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform as a matter of priority and without delay.

71. We support the Member States driven nature of the reform of the Security Council, and will intensify efforts for the reform through the IGN in accordance with General Assembly Decision 62/557 and other relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly, such as resolution 53/30. Building on the recent progress achieved in the IGN, including through more transparency and inclusivity and by enhancing its institutional memory, we decide to:

(a) Encourage the submission of further models and the review of already presented models by States and Groups of States for the structured dialogues with a view to developing a consolidated model in the future based on convergences on the five clusters, and the models presented by Member States.

Action 44. We will strengthen the response of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security and its relationship with the General Assembly.

72. We will continue to improve and democratize the working methods of the Security Council and strengthen its relationship with the General Assembly, in accordance with and with full respect for their respective functions, authority, powers, and competencies as enshrined in the Charter, with the understanding that this should not substitute the reform of the UN Security Council outlined in Action 42. We decide to: (a) Fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the United Nations Charter as they relate to the decision- making process in the UN Security Council, including Art. 27 (3) of the UN Charter. (b) Support credible, timely and decisive action by the Security Council, in exercise of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, to prevent or end the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. (c) Actively reinforces the ongoing efforts of the Security Council to review and enhance its working methods, including inter alia, penholding and co-penholding arrangements, and strengthen the cooperation and communication between the Security Council and the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies, including the Peacebuilding Commission, as well as the Economic and Social Council and regional and sub-regional arrangements, including by continuing to fully implement and make use of General Assembly Resolutions 377A(V) (“Uniting for Peace”) and 76/262 ( “Veto Initiative”). (d) Improve the participation in and access to the work of the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies for all members of the General Assembly,
to enhance the Council's accountability to the membership and increase the transparency of its work.

Action 45. We will increase our efforts to revitalize the work of the General Assembly.

73. We reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations. We decide to:

(a) Further enhance and make full use of the role and authority of the General Assembly to address evolving global challenges, in full compliance with the Charter.

(b) Ensure that the selection and appointment process of the Secretary-General is guided by the principles of merit, transparency, inclusiveness and with due regard to gender balance and regional rotation and taken into account during the next, and in subsequent, selection and appointment processes the regrettable fact that there has never been a woman Secretary-General, and we encourage Member States to consider nominating women as candidates.

Action 46. We will strengthen the Economic and Social Council to accelerate sustainable development.

74. We commit to strengthening the work of the Economic and Social Council as a principal organ for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on issues of economic and social development, recognizing the key role of the Council in achieving a balanced integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development and supporting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. We decide to:

(a) Continue to strengthen cooperation between the Economic and Social Council and both the Security Council and Peace building Commission and between the Economic and Social Council and the international financial institutions, in accordance with their respective mandates.

(b) Facilitate more structured, meaningful and inclusive engagement of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council in the activities of the Council.

(c) Support the Council's youth forum to enhance youth engagement by ensuring that the forum is a platform for youth from across all regions to continue to share their ideas and engage in dialogue with Member States.

(d) Explore options, in the context of the upcoming Thirtieth anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women, to revitalize the Commission on the Status of Women to promote the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, to achieve gender equality, the empowerment of all women and girls, and promote and protect their
human rights and to ensure that the Commission is fit for purpose.

Action 47. We will strengthen the Peacebuilding Commission.

75. We affirm our commitment to strengthening the Peacebuilding Commission through the 2025 review of the peacebuilding architecture to bring a more strategic approach and greater coherence and impact to national and international peacebuilding and sustaining
peace efforts. We decide to:

(a) Enhance the role of the Commission as a platform for building and sustaining peace, including through sharing good practices among Member States and mobilizing political and financial support for national prevention, sustaining peace and peacebuilding efforts, in particular to avoid possible relapse into conflict , in accordance with the Commission's mandate.

(b) Make greater use of the Commission to support Member States progress their nationally-owned and -led peacebuilding, sustaining peace and prevention efforts, and strengthen the Commission's advisory, bridging and convening role, and encourage the Commission to consult with civil society, nongovernmental organizations, including women's organizations, and the private sector
engaged in peacebuilding activities, as appropriate, in line with the Commission's mandate.

(c) Establish more systematic and strategic partnerships between the Commission and international, regional and sub-regional organizations, including the international financial institutions, to strengthen peacebuilding and sustaining peace efforts and to mobilize financing for sustaining peace and to help align national development, peacebuilding and prevention approaches.

(d) Ensure the Commission plays a vital support role to countries during and after the transition of a peace operation, in cooperation with the Security Council and supported by United Nations Country Teams, upon the request of the country concerned.

Action 48. We will strengthen the United Nations system.

76. We underline the importance of the United Nations system remaining effective, efficient and impactful. We decide to:

(a) Achieve a more agile, responsive and resilient United Nations, taking into account the UN 2.0 vision of enhancing the Organization's capabilities in innovation, data analytics, digital transformation, strategic foresight and behavioral science to better support Member States and deliver on its mandates .

(b) Strengthen the United Nations development system, including the Resident Coordinator system, to make it more strategic, responsive, collaborative and integrated in supporting developing countries achieve the 2030 Agenda and address current, new and emerging challenges to sustainable development, in accordance with the Charter, and in support of national priorities and policies, including
through United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Frameworks, recalling the decision to provide adequate, predictable and sustainable funding to achieve these goals.

(c) Ensure accessibility and disability inclusion at the United Nations to allow for the full, meaningful and effective participation and equality of persons with disabilities in all aspects of the United Nations' work.

(d) Ensure the transparent and inclusive selection process of United Nations' executive heads and senior positions with due regard for recruiting on as wide a geographic basis as possible and gender balance and adhere to the general rule that there should be no monopoly on senior posts in the United Nations system by nationals of any State or group of States.

Action 49. We will ensure the effective enjoyment by all of all human rights and respond to new and emerging challenges.

77. Following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirtieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, we remain committed to actively promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. This includes the right to development. We recommit to realize our respective obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights and to implement all relevant international human rights instruments. All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Human rights are mutually reinforcing and must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. The Sustainable Development Goals seek to realize the human rights of all.

Individuals and civil society institutions, including non-governmental organizations, groups and national human rights institutions, where they exist, engaged in the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with national legislation and policies, must be protected from any form of intimidation and reprisals, both online and offline. We must continue to uphold human rights in the future by strengthening our capabilities to respond to existing, new and emerging challenges to the enjoyment of human rights. We decide to:

(a) Strengthen the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations human rights mechanisms, in accordance with existing mandates, to enable them to respond to the range of human rights challenges facing the international community with impartiality, objectivity and non-compliance. -selectivity.

(b) Request the Secretary-General to provide proposals to the General Assembly for adequate, predictable and sustainable financing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations' human rights mechanisms, with the aim of steadily and significantly increasing the resources, including from the regular budget, for the efficient and effective execution
of their mandates.

(c) Enhance coordination and cooperation among United Nations entities working on human rights and avoid duplication of activities, within their existing mandates, including through closer coordination with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Action 50. We will accelerate reform of the international financial architecture to address the challenges of today and tomorrow.

78. Reform of the international financial architecture is an important step towards building greater trust in the multilateral system. We commend ongoing reform efforts and call for even more urgent and ambitious action to ensure that the international financial architecture becomes more efficient, more equitable, fit for the world of today and responsive to the challenges faced by developing countries in closing the SDG financing gap. The reform of the international financial architecture should place the 2030 Agenda at its centre, with an unwavering commitment to investing in the eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions.

We decide to:

(a) Continue to pursue deeper reforms of the international financial architecture to turbocharge implementation of the 2030 Agenda and achieve a more inclusive, just, peaceful, resilient and sustainable world for people and planet, for present and future generations.

Action 51. We will accelerate reform of the international financial architecture to improve the voice and representation of developing countries.

79. We recognize the important role of the United Nations in promoting sound global economic governance, while fully respecting existing governance mechanisms and mandates independent of the United Nations that presides over specific organizations and rules. We welcome the initiative to convene a Biennial Summit at the level of Heads of State and Government to strengthen existing and establish more systematic links and coordination between the United Nations and the international financial institutions, and we stress the importance of inclusive participation. We underscore the need for enhancing representation and voice of developing countries in decision-making in the international financial architecture especially the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions. In addition to changes to quotas and voting power, we welcome other steps to improve the voice and representation of developing countries, such as the creation of a twenty-fifth chair on the IMF Executive Board for sub-Saharan Africa. We emphasize the importance of improving diversity and gender representation in the Executive Boards, senior management and staff positions. These steps can equip these institutions to better address global challenges. We decide to:

(a) Call on the board of the IMF to take further steps to enhance the representation and voice of developing countries to help the IMF deliver its mandate more effectively.

(b) Call on the governing bodies of the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to ensure robust representation and voice of developing countries, while fully recognizing ongoing efforts in this regard.

Action 52. We will accelerate reform of the international financial architecture to mobilize additional financing to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, respond to the needs of developing countries and direct financing to those most in need.

80. Developing countries require enhanced access to financing from all sources to achieve the SDGs. Flows of capital to many developing countries are falling, and more capital is leaving many developing countries than is coming in. Multilateral development banks play a vital role in supporting sustainable development and the achievement of the SDGs and are critical to increasing countries' access to finance on more affordable terms and helping to unlock private sector investment. We welcome ongoing reform efforts of the multilateral development banks to mobilize significantly greater financing for the 2030 Agenda, recognizing that further reforms of the Banks are urgently needed, in addition to the strengthening of domestic resource mobilization, and domestic policy and regulatory environments. We decide to:

(a) Deliver a robust twenty-first replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), including contributions from both new and existing donors that significantly increases IDA's resources, and establish a clear pathway to larger and more sustainable IDA funding by the 2030 replenishment.

(b) Call upon multilateral development banks to accelerate the pace of reforms to their missions and visions, incentive structures, operational approaches and financial capacity, and to consider additional steps to increase the availability of finance to developing countries to better address global challenges and further align their work with the sustainable development goals.

(c) Call upon the governing boards and management of multilateral development banks to enable additional finance from the banks' own balance sheets by fully implementing, where relevant and appropriate, the recommendations from the G20 Independent Review of Multilateral Development Banks' Capital Adequacy Frameworks by the end of 2026, including reflecting the value of callable capital in multilateral development bank capital adequacy frameworks and issuing hybrid capital at scale.

(d) Encourage the boards of multilateral development banks to schedule general capital increases and consider further general capital increases in the future, when appropriate, while recognizing recent capital contributions.

(e) Invite the multilateral development banks, in partnership with the Secretary-General, to present options and recommendations on new methodologies to improve access to concessional finance for developing countries, with full respect for the independent mandate
and authorities of the respective governing body of each multilateral development bank.

(f) Notes the work of the international financial institutions, international organizations and multilateral development banks to consider structural vulnerability and invites them to consider using the multidimensional vulnerability index, as appropriate, as a complement to their existing practices and policies in line with their respective mandates. (g) Call on multilateral development banks to provide timely support to developing countries by increasing the availability of long-term concessional finance, including lending in local currencies, as well as the design, financing and scaling up of country-owned and driven innovative mechanisms .

Action 53. We will accelerate the reform of the international financial architecture so that countries can borrow sustainably to invest in their long-term development.

81. Borrowing is vital for countries to invest in their long-term development. Countries must be able to borrow with confidence, sustainably, and have access to credit on more affordable terms, while ensuring full transparency. We are deeply concerned by the emergence of high and unsustainable debt burdens and
vulnerabilities in many developing countries, the constraint this imposes on their development progress, and the weakness of safeguards to prevent these situations from occurring. We underline the importance of reforms to existing multilateral processes to facilitate collective action to prevent debt crises, facilitate debt restructuring and debt relief, when appropriate, taking into account evolving trends in the global debt landscape. We decide to:

(a) Strengthen the multilateral response to support countries with high and unsustainable debt burdens, with the meaningful participation of the countries concerned, creditors, both public and private, and the
international financial institutions, ensuring an approach that is more effective, comprehensive, coordinated , systematic, transparent and timely to enable those countries to escape debt overhang and prioritize government expenditure on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

(b) Invite the IMF, in collaboration with the Secretary-General, the World Bank, the Group of 20 and major bilateral creditors, to review the sovereign debt architecture building on existing international processes, including by making proposals for establishing effective, efficient, equitable and comprehensive multilateral debt mechanisms, for promoting responsible lending and borrowing, for improving transparency, and for upgrading tools for debt sustainability analysis. (c) Welcome the Secretary-General's efforts to engage with credit rating agencies on their role in sustainable development and request the Secretary-General keep Member States updated on these discussions. (d) Improve and continue to implement the G20's Common Framework for Debt Treatments to enable effective,
predictable, coordinated, timely and orderly restructuring processes and encourage steps to ensure comparability of treatment of sovereign and private creditors. (e) Promote,

where appropriate, the use of state-contingent clauses in all lending, including climate-resilient debt clauses when lending to developing countries vulnerable to hazards, including the adverse impact of climate change.

(f) Promote greater use of debt swaps for the SDGs, including debt swaps for climate or nature, to developing countries, as appropriate.

Action 54. We will accelerate the reform of the international financial architecture so that it supports countries equitably during systemic shocks and makes the financial system more stable.

82. The growing frequency and intensity of global economic shocks has set back progress on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. We recognize the role of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in
strengthening the global financial safety net in a world prone to systemic shocks, and their potential
contribution to greater global financial stability. We welcome the pledges to rechannel over $100 billion worth of SDRs to developing countries while stressing the urgency of delivering on these pledges to developing countries as rapidly as possible. We decide to:

(a) Call on countries to continue to explore options to voluntarily rechannel at least half of SDRs from the 2021 allocation, including through multilateral development banks, while respecting relevant legal frameworks and preserving the reserve asset character of Special Drawing Rights.

(b) Encourage the IMF to explore all options to continue to strengthen the global financial safety net to support developing countries to better respond to macroeconomic shocks and explore ways to make rapid issuances of Special Drawing Rights and enable prompt, voluntary rechanneling to developing countries during future financial crises and systemic shocks.

(c) Welcome the IMF's ongoing review of its surcharge policy and encourage a revision of the policy.

(d) Promote financial stability through international cooperation on, and consistent regulation of, banks and other financial service entities.

Action 55. We will accelerate the reform of the international financial architecture so that it can meet the challenge of climate change.

83. Climate change and biodiversity loss exacerbates many of the challenges facing the international financial architecture and can undermine progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Developing countries require access to finance to both address climate change and fulfill their critical development needs, including poverty eradication, and promoting sustainable, inclusive, resilient economic growth. The international financial architecture should continue to channel and increase financing towards both sustainable development and climate action. Investment in sustainable development and climate action are both essential, interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Developing countries face increasing financing needs, especially those vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, leading to a growing demand for finance. We decide to:

(a) Call on Multilateral Development Banks to increase the availability, accessibility and impact of climate finance to developing countries, while safeguarding the additionality of climate finance, to support developing countries implement their national plans and strategies to address climate change. (b) Call on Multilateral Development Banks to mobilize additional financing to support adaptation and deploy and develop renewable and energy-efficiency technologies in line with existing commitments.

(c) Call on international financial institutions and other relevant entities to improve the assessment and management of climate-related financial risks and support steps to address the high cost of capital for developing countries. (d) Encourage that the private sector, especially large corporations, contributes to sustainability and protecting our planet, including through partnership-based approaches, to scale up support to developing countries and enable climate action.

Action 56. We will develop a framework on measures of progress on sustainable development to complement and go beyond gross domestic product.

84. We recognize that sustainable development must be pursued in a balanced and integrated manner. We reaffirm the need to urgently develop measures of progress on sustainable development that complement or go beyond GDP. These measures should reflect progress on the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, including in the consideration of informing access to development finance and technical cooperation. We decide to:

(a) Request the Secretary General to establish an independent high-level expert group to develop recommendations for a
limited number of country-owned and universally applicable indicators of sustainable development that complement and go beyond GDP, in close consultation with Member States and relevant stakeholders , taking into account the work of the Statistical Commission, building on the Global Indicators Framework for SDGs and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to present the outcome
of its work during the eightieth session of the General Assembly.

(b) Initiate a United Nations-led intergovernmental process following the completion of the work of the independent high-level expert
group in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the UN Statistical Commission, international financial institutions, multilateral development banks and regional commissions, online with their respective mandates, on measures of progress on sustainable development that complement or go beyond gross domestic product, considering the recommendations of the Secretary-General's high-level expert group.

Action 57. We will strengthen the international response to complex global shocks.

85. We recognize the need for a more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the United Nations in this regard. Complex global shocks are events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional multistakeholder, and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response . Complex

global shocks have a disproportionate impact on the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world and usually have disastrous consequences for sustainable development and prosperity. An armed conflict does not by itself constitute a complex global shock, but conflict could, in some cases, lead to impacts across multiple sectors. The principles of national ownership and consent, equity, solidarity and cooperation will guide our future responses to complex global shocks, with full respect for international law, including
the Charter and its purposes and principles, and existing mandates for United Nations intergovernmental bodies and processes, United Nations' system entities, and specialized agencies. We will uphold the Secretary-General's role to, inter alia, convene Member States, promote the coordination of the whole multilateral system, and engage with relevant stakeholders in response to crises. We request the Secretary-General to:

(a) Present for the consideration of Member States protocols for convening and operationalizing emergency platforms based on flexible approaches to respond to a range of different complex global shocks, including criteria for triggering and phasing out emergency
platforms, ensuring that emergency platforms are convenient for a finite period and will not be a standing institution or entity.(b) Ensure that the convening of emergency

27 August 2024

27

Machine Translated by Google

Pact for the Future: Rev.3

platforms supports and complements the response of United Nations' principal organs, relevant United Nations entities, United Nations-coordination entities and mechanisms, and specialized agencies mandated to respond to emergencies, and that it will not affect or interfere with the mandated role of any United Nations' system entities, coordination entities, mechanisms or specialized agencies, intergovernmental body or duplicate ongoing intergovernmental processes, including the mandated role of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and with full respect for the United Nations' mandated coordination role in response to humanitarian emergencies.

Action 58. We will strengthen international cooperation for the environment and the implementation of and compliance with our multilateral environmental agreements to deliver on our ambition to
protect our planet.

86. We recognize the critical importance of tackling global environmental challenges to the future well-being of people and planet and the need to enhance synergies, cooperation or collaboration, as appropriate, when implementing our respective obligations under existing multilateral environmental agreements. We decide to:

(a) Explore options in the United Nations Environment Assembly to accelerate the implementation of and strengthen compliance with

all multilateral environmental agreements to address global environmental challenges including the provision of means of implementation in the context of sustainable development efforts.

Action 59. We will strengthen our partnerships to deliver on existing commitments and address new and emerging challenges.

87. We recognize the importance of strengthening the United Nations' engagement with national parliaments and relevant stakeholders, while preserving the intergovernmental character of the Organization. The challenges we face require cooperation not only across borders but also across the whole of society. Our efforts must involve Governments as well as parliaments, the United Nations system and other international institutions, local authorities, Indigenous Peoples, civil society, business and the private sector, faith-based organizations, the scientific and academic communities, and all people to ensure an effective response to our common challenges. We decide to:

(a) Ensure that relevant stakeholders can meaningfully participate in relevant United Nations' processes and that Member States have access to the views and expertise of those partners on a systematic basis.

(b) Leverage existing channels and consider new approaches for continuous and open communication between United Nations intergovernmental bodies and civil society, allowing for ongoing dialogue, exchange of information and collaboration beyond formal meetings.

(c) Encourage the private sector's contribution to addressing global challenges and strengthening their accountability towards the implementation of United Nations frameworks.

(d) Deepen United Nations' engagement with national parliaments in United Nations intergovernmental bodies and processes, in accordance with national legislation, including through building on the efforts of the United Nations and Inter-Parliamentary Union to engage parliamentarians to maintain support for the implementation of relevant UN agreements and resolutions.

(e) Request the Secretary-General to provide recommendations on ways to strengthen the engagement of local and regional authorities at the United Nations by the end of the seventy-ninth session for Member States' consideration, including on how United Nations' engagement with local and regional authorities can
contribute to the localization of the Sustainable Development Goals in line with national legislation and policies.

(f) Enhance cooperation between the United Nations and regional, sub-regional and other organizations, which will be critical to maintaining international peace and security, promoting and protecting human rights, and achieving sustainable development.

Action 60. We will strengthen the governance of outer space to foster its peaceful, safe, and sustainable uses for the benefit of all humanity.

27 August 2024

*end of Pact For The Future Of Total Slavery!*

PEACE SELLS BUT WHO’S BUYING?

Share

Subscribe now

Remember the MISSION folks!

Time to take down the UN 7 headed beast of Babylon!!! Watch this explainer - Sign the demand against Pact For The Future Of Total Slavery and share far and wide!!

Support TAKE DOWN THE BEAST UN!!!

Leave a comment

Also see:

TAKE ACTION! NO U.N.! SAY IT LOUD!

1. Sign to reject UN Declaration on Future Generations final draft: https://whowatch.org/rejectdeclarationonfuturegenerations

2. Sign to reject UN Pact For The Future: https://whowatch.org/rejectpactforthefuture

3. As soon as we hear the Global Digital Compact is in Silence Procedure we will post a form to sign to reject it!

Sign to EXIT UN! Sign now & share!

4. Support & share the two US Bills to EXIT UN on Dr. Rima Laibow’s site: preventgenocide2030.org

James Roguski

Global Governance

The United Nations has submitted the third revised version of the “Pact for the Future” to the 193 member nations in what they refer to as their “Silence Procedure…

Read more

2 years ago · 28 likes · 8 comments · James Roguski

No idea why FORBES has the news out BEFORE the United Nations… Secrets UN?

REJECT THE UN PACT FOR THE FUTURE OF TOTAL SLAVERY!!!!

Share

Subscribe now

FIRST: There are TWO Urgent Demands to sign, then a bunch of information on the Pact for the Future is below!

Heads UP:

As it is intended to be the final draft, Revision 3 of the Pact for the Future is now under silence procedure, a 72-hour review window where countries can raise objections to the final draft.

This News is from FORBES a couple hours ago - BUT NOTABLY IOJ CAN’T FIND THIS NEWS ON UN SITE FOR PACT FOR THE FUTURE YET

• The same procedure for the Declaration on Future Generations resulted in multiple objections, especially in the climate change sections.

• Expect similar actions on the Pact, and further revisions.

Sign Now to Demand Countries Break 72 hour Silence Procedure on UN Pact For the Future-BREAK THE SILENCE!

Happening NOW 72 hours Silence Procedure!!!

• Update: the Silence Procedure on The Pact For The Future ends 1pm EST on Tuesday September 3, 2024!!!! (So we have a bit more than 72 hours - sign & share please and thank you)

Link: https://whowatch.org/rejectpactforthefuture

Also: Sign Now to tell countries to REJECT UN Declaration on Future Generations - It’s STILL in process!

(Silence Procedure and consensus was just broken but they are barreling forward to reach agreement by Sept 20-23 in Summit of the Future - Sign now to say Hell NO!!!!)

Link: https://whowatch.org/rejectdeclarationonfuturegenerations

Original post on the Declaration for Future Generations from a couple hours ago is below - It has a lot more details on the Declaration, if you have not yet read it in full:

Share

Folks we need to stop the UN takeover - all paid subscriptions and donations are so important and appreciated in this non profit fight to save humanity from the scourge of UN pseudo-scientific “concepts” and “programs”. We work on this DAILY! Support is needed for IOJ to go FULL STEAM as they are barreling forward FAST.

Subscribe now

Support this work - Impede NWO!

Below is an article from Forbes this afternoon that is actually very interesting about the Declaration on Future Generations and the Pact For the Future. In particular, we found it interesting that: “An earlier draft expressed an intent to hold businesses liable for the impacts of climate change and a desire to use banks to push companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, that language was removed in the final draft released on August 27.” Elon Musk will be happy to hear this was removed, as he hates ESG’s like we do as a scam to burden business and bring about destabilization.

From Forbes:

UN ‘Summit Of The Future’ Changes Course On Businesses’ Accountability For Climate Change

Jon McGowan Contributor

I am an attorney who writes about ESG policy, laws, and regulations.

Updated Aug 28, 2024, 01:36pm EDT

In late September, the United Nations will host the Summit of the Future, a four-day meeting in New York that will adopt updated commitments to meet existing goals, including addressing climate change. The summit will result in the adoption of three documents that are still being drafted.

An earlier draft expressed an intent to hold businesses liable for the impacts of climate change and a desire to use banks to push companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, that language was removed in the final draft released on August 27.

In 2015, the UN adopted the 2030 Agenda, a “plan of action for people, planet, prosperity and peace outlined through 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” The SDGs address an array of issues including poverty, gender equality, education, and infrastructure. Notably, the SDGs created goals relating to the environment and climate change, in alignment with the Paris Agreement.

The SDGs have driven UN policy and international legal development. However, the goals were overly ambitious and turned out to be unobtainable. As the 2030 deadline approaches, the UN is working to find ways to adapt.

In 2021, the Secretary-General issued Our Common Agenda, a call for cooperation to get nations on track to “by turbocharging” action on the SDGs. It also called for a Summit of the Future to be held in September 2024.

The Summit of the Future is designed to bring world leaders together to refocus on obtaining the SDGs. At the summit, world leaders will adopt the Pact for the Future, which will include a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations.

The process to draft those documents began in February 2023. Delegates were selected to lead the process. They held a series of meetings and produced multiple revisions of the draft looking for a consensus on the language.

By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The prior draft, revision 2, of the Pact for the Future includes multiple “Actions” directed at addressing climate change. However, Action 53 should gain the attention of the business community.

Action 53 is primarily focused on international finance as it relates to climate change. Specifically, it looks at Multilateral Development Banks, institutions like the World Bank that are created to loan money to developing countries. MDBs are created, managed, and funded through international organizations, like the UN, or through agreements of multiple countries. As they are created to positively impact developing countries, the inclusion of policies like climate change is not uncommon.

However, Action 53 goes a step further, calling on regulations to ensure “that the private sector, especially large corporations, contributes to sustainability and protecting our planet.”

To accomplish this goal, they advocate for the use of reporting procedures, like sustainability reporting; and environmental, social, and governance reporting; and climate-related risk disclosures.

Further, it calls for the establishment of “accountability mechanisms for environmental damage caused by their activities.” While the specific mechanisms are unclear, the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is the most likely model for future legal and financial accountability on businesses for climate change. So far, there has been little desire in other jurisdictions to adopt similar legal liabilities.

Finally, the Pact for the Future calls on countries to “make ratings of investment products more credible.” This has been an ongoing concern in the financial sector as climate minded investors rely on rating systems to determine if a product is green or climate friendly. However, there is no consistency in the regulations and funds have been accused of being misleading. Financial regulatory agencies around the world have started to develop regulations relating to climate friendly and green claims by funds.

However, revision 3 removed that language. The latest version states that countries will “encourage that the private sector, especially large corporations, contributes to sustainability and protecting our planet, including through partnership-based approaches, to scale up support to developing countries and enable climate action.”

As it is intended to be the final draft, Revision 3 of the Pact for the Future is now under silence procedure, a 72-hour review window where countries can raise objections to the final draft.

The same procedure for the Declaration on Future Generations resulted in multiple objections, especially in the climate change sections. Expect similar actions on the Pact, and further revisions.

The Summit of the Future will occur September 20-23 in New York.

Unpacking the Pact for the Future: Analyses and Takeaways from Rev.1 & Rev.2 UN, Development and Human Rights - From GlobalPolicy.org

Explainer: The Summit of the Future will take place on 22-23 September 2024 at UNHQ in New York and has been envisaged as a pivotal moment to reinvigorate the multilateral system and redress the inequities within global governance at large. The Summit’s outcome document, the Pact for the Future, contains a myriad of proposals aimed at addressing issues that present and future generations face, organized across five key tracks:

Chapter 1. Sustainable development and financing for development;

Chapter 2. International peace and security;

Chapter 3. Science technology and innovation;

Chapter 4. Youth and future generations; and

Chapter 5. Global governance

The Pact for the Future has undergone a series of iterations as Member States continue to hold negotiations, since the release of the Pact’s Zero Draft on 26 January 2024. Rev.1 of the Pact was released on 14 May and Rev.2 was most recently published on 17 July.

Rev. 3 is anticipated to be released by the end of August. [apparently it’s in 72 hour Silence Procedure - but we cannot find a copy of it! - IOJ]

Throughout the negotiation process, Member States expressed that their goal is to produce an ambitious and outcome-oriented Pact, however several changes made between Rev.1 and Rev.2. resulted in an iteration of the Pact that is weakened, diluted, and risks maintaining the unjust status quo.

The “Unpacking the Pact for the Future” series analyses the changes in language made between Rev.1 and Rev.2 to assess the state of the Pact as it is now and what should be done in Rev. 3 to raise the ambition of the Pact, thus working to ensure that Member States capitalize on this once in a generation moment at the Summit of the Future.

This explainer focuses on funding of the UN, development and human rights, and looks at specific actions in Chapter 5 (Global Governance).

A side by side comparison of the text from Rev.1 and Rev.2 reveals the specific changes in language made and the “key takeaways” section provides insights as to why these changes matter.

Side by Side Comparison :

Funding the UN, Development & Human Rights | Rev.1 Actions 41 & 42 & Rev.2 Actions 46 & 47 Rev.1 Rev.2 Action 41.

We will reform and strengthen the United Nations.

Action 46. We will strengthen the United Nations system

51. We underline the importance of the United Nations remaining effective, efficient and impactful.

We agree to:

70. We underline the importance of the United Nations system remaining effective, efficient and impactful. We decide to: 51. (c) Strengthen and sustainably fund the United Nations development system, including the Resident Coordinator system, to more effectively support countries to meet their sustainable development ambitions and ensure it can address new and emerging challenges.

70. (b) Strengthen the United Nations development system, including the Resident Coordinator system, to make it more strategic, responsive, collaborative and integrated in supporting developing countries achieve the 2030 Agenda and address new and emerging challenges, in line with nationally-owned plans, through sustainable and predictable funding.

Action 42. We will strengthen the United Nations’ human rights pillar to ensure the effective enjoyment by all of all human rights and respond to new and emerging challenges.

Action 47. We will strengthen the United Nations’ human rights pillar to ensure the effective enjoyment by all of all human rights and respond to new and emerging challenges.

52. Following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirtieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, we are committed to actively promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. We commit to fulfill our respective obligations to respect, protect and uphold human rights and to implement all relevant international human rights instruments. All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and the Sustainable Development Goals seek to achieve all human rights. Human Rights Defenders must be protected and supported as important partners in achieving our collective commitments.

71. Following the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirtieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, we remain committed to actively promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. This includes the right to development. We recommit to realize our respective obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights and to implement all relevant international human rights instruments. All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and the Sustainable Development Goals both depend on the protection of and seek to achieve all human rights. Human rights defenders must be protected from any form of intimidation and reprisals, both online and offline. [epic fail so far - IOJ note] Our ability to uphold human rights in the future will require us to strengthen our capabilities to respond to the negative impact of new technologies, poverty and inequality, climate change and environmental degradation, and threats to international peace and security in new and emerging domains on human rights.

We agree to: We must continue to uphold human rights in the future by strengthening our capabilities to respond to new and emerging domains in human rights.

We decide to: (b) Request the Secretary-General to provide proposals for adequate, sustainable and predictable financing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with the aim of steadily and significantly increasing the Office’s regular budget resources over the next five years. (b) Request the Secretary-General to provide proposals for adequate, sustainable and predictable financing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Nations’ human rights mechanisms, with the aim of steadily and significantly increasing the resources, including from the regular budget, for the efficient and effective execution of their mandates.

Key Takeaways:

● The shift from “We will reform” → “We will strengthen” in regards to the United Nations indicates a weakening of language by maintaining the institution as is despite its problems.

● The quality and quantity of funding the UN system plays a direct role in the institution's overall effectiveness, and is a critical component that needs to be sufficiently addressed when discussing UN reform. Language on funding the UN has been weakened in Rev.2 in that funding of the UN Development System (UNDS) and the Resident Coordinator (RC) system, the cornerstone of the UNDS, is framed in terms of funding aligned with “nationally-owned plans” rather than as a reflection of Member State commitments to the multilateral system.

● Upholding the right to development is now a standalone sentence in Rev.2, signifying its increased importance.

● Language on increasing funding for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been kept, however, the timeline for increasing regular budget resources over the next five years has been dropped and replaced with vague language. Weakening the language in this regard indicates reservations by Member States to provide financial commitments to funding the human rights pillar of the UN, which already suffers from chronic underfunding.

● The role and importance of human rights defenders has been slightly diluted, with Rev.1 highlighting the importance of their protection and critical role in achieving collective Member State commitments to Rev.2 focused solely on protection; another slight shift from “our ability to uphold human rights” to “we will continue to uphold human rights” implies a shift towards maintaining business as usual rather than assessing/charting a new approach to mainstreaming human rights.

• IOJ add’s in that the Member States have a duty to strengthen human rights OUTSIDE the UN system - what’s with the overfunding of UN human rights bodies as if the UN human rights system could ever be functional while UN?

Share

Subscribe now

Folks we need to stop the UN takeover - all paid subscriptions and donations are so important and appreciated in this non profit fight to save humanity from the scourge of UN pseudo-scientific “concepts” and “programs”. We work on this DAILY! Support is needed for IOJ to go FULL STEAM as they are barreling forward FAST.

Support this work - Impede NWO!

Leave a comment

Sign the 2 US bills to exit UN on Dr. Rima Laibow’s site - preventgenocide2030.org

Other Related IoJ Publications:

We oppose United Nations Agenda 2030

“Silence procedure”

At the end of negotiations on a resolution, when a tentative agreement has been reached, delegations may need to get final approval from their governments. The draft resolution is declared to be“in silence procedure” for a specified time. If no Member State puts forward an objection by the given deadline, the draft text is considered “agreed.”

The United Nations Member States are ONCE AGAIN infighting about agreeing on the new standards for International norms. As a result, the UN Member States and their overlords at UN have FAILED to reach consensus agreement on the “Declaration on Future Generations” in the rare 72 hour Silence Procedure undertaken 12 days ago.

Below we have laid out the entire document Declaration on Future Generations to show you precisely which Articles are already AGREED, and most importantly, which articles the Member States broke the Silence Procedure on.

The Articles that have not achieved consensus are not agreed so far and are now working out the details, even possibly changing verbiage to come to a full agreement on all Articles by the September 22,23 Summit of the Future put on the United Nations to usher all this in.

If the Declaration on Future Generations is agreed upon prior to the Summit of the Future, it will be automatically adopted and signed at the Summit of the Future.

Sign Demand Below To Tell Member States and UN To Reject the Declaration on Future Generations:

Link: https://whowatch.org/rejectdeclarationonfuturegenerations

Help Support This Demand & Legal Work

Are you willing to support IoJ with a generous donation? We need your support as we are only funded by citizens of the world who have a heart for the many causes we fight for. We fight for you and future children!

The document was placed into the “silence procedure” for 72 hours starting on August 13, 2024. IOJ is very grateful that researcher James Roguski found out in the last day and immediately informed us, so we could make one of our infamous legal demands to BREAK THE SILENCE! You all sent about 1500 demands in less than 24 hours and you never know if it makes a difference, but we need to participate and we are very proud of you all for joining us in making noise and proper demands on this.

Share

Subscribe now

See the demand from August 15th, & once again - THANK you all for taking real and URGENT action when called into duty- Some Member States did what we asked!!

We even had one misdirected Substacker misquote what a silence procedure is & tell people not to sign - so we had to get the definition to post it and ask people to continue signing! BE THE PERSISTENCE!

Remember: “Silence procedure” means that at the end of negotiations on a resolution, when a tentative agreement has been reached, delegations may need to get final approval from their governments. The draft resolution is declared to be“in silence procedure” for a specified time. If no Member State puts forward an objection by the given deadline, the draft text is considered “agreed.”

The UN has revealed which portions of the text were objected to, but it has NOT (yet) revealed which nation(s) submitted the objections:

Message from the Co-Facilitators of the Intergovernmental Process for the Declaration on Future Generations

Reference is made to the message from the Co-Facilitators of the Intergovernmental Process for the Declaration on Future Generations, issued on 16th August 2024, advising Member States that silence was broken on REV3 of the Declaration by several delegations and that further details would be provided in due course.

In this regard, Member States are invited to note that silence was broken on the following paragraphs:

Preamble: paragraphs 2, 3 and 9

Guiding Principles: Chapeau, and paragraphs 13, 15, 16 and 17

Commitments: paragraphs 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 34

Actions: paragraphs 35, 37 and 38

In light of the foregoing, the Co-Facilitators will consult with the relevant delegations over the next few days to seek clarity on their rationales for breaking silence.

Following these consultations, Member States will be apprised of the immediate next steps as the Co-Facilitators endeavour to maintain a concise, action oriented, ambitious and balanced text.

https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-letter-dfg-co-facilitators-update-following-silence-procedure.pdf

LET’S GET INTO WHICH ARTICLES ARE STILL OPEN TO NEGOTIATE

(AND WHICH ARTICLES ARE ALREADY SETTLED!!!!)

See details below. More than you ever wanted to know haha….

REV3 Declaration on Future Generations (Mostly agreed - except where Arrow shows bold and italicised)

Preamble

1. We, the Heads of State and Government and high representatives, having met at the Summit of the Future, at the United Nations Headquarters on 22 and 23 September 2024,

2. Reaffirming our commitments to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as our respective obligations under international law,

[IOJ note - NAH - WE THE UN MEMBER STATES CAN’T AGREE TO RENEW COMMITMENTS TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. Haha - How about we keep IN the part about international law, and ditch the part where we commit to UN and UN’s sneaky Human Rights treaty that allows free speech to be limited for “public health”? - Just our request dear Member States - sticking to it!]

3. Also reaffirming our commitments to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 2023 SDG Summit Political Declaration, and our pledge to future generations as set out, inter alia, in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,

[Please do NOT agree to renew Agenda 2030!! Arrrrggghhhhh!!!]

• Dear readers - you DO realize we all have work to do in the next 3 weeks before this madness is adopted right?

4. Cognizant that future generations are all those generations that do not yet exist, and who will inherit this planet,

5. Observing that many existing national legal systems, as well as some cultures and religions, seek to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations and promote intergenerational solidarity, justice and equity,

6. Recognizing that the decisions, actions, and inactions of present generations, have an intergenerational multiplier effect, and therefore resolving to ensure that present generations act with responsibility towards safeguarding the needs and interests of future generations,

7. Acknowledging that we must learn from our past achievements and failures, and their consequences, in order to ensure a more sustainable, just and equitable world for present and future generations, and understanding the interconnectedness of past, present and future,

8. Recognizing children and youth as agents of change and the need for intergenerational dialogue and engagement, including with and among children, youth and older persons, to be taken into consideration in our policy and decision-making processes in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations,

Help Support This Demand & Legal Work

Subscribe now

Share

9. Acknowledging that investing in building a strong foundation for lasting international peace and security, sustainable development, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all and upholding the rule of law is the most effective way to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations,

[IOJ note - Why couldn’t they agree on this?]

10. Recognizing the complex and interrelated opportunities, challenges and risks faced by present generations, as well as the implications of projected global demographic trends,

11. Further committing to build a stronger, more effective and resilient multilateral system based on international law, with the United Nations at its core, underpinned by transparency, confidence and trust, for the benefit of present and future generations. REV3 Declaration on Future Generations Page 2 of 5

Guiding Principles

In order to seize the opportunity that present generations possess to leave a better future for generations to come and to fulfill our commitment to meet the demands of the present in a way that safeguards the needs and interests of future generations, while leaving no one behind, we observe the following principles:

12. The maintenance of international peace and security, and the full respect for international law, must be promoted in line with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,

13. The pursuit and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, encompassing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, which includes the right to development, must be respected, protected and promoted, without distinction or discrimination of any kind,

[IOJ note - Why couldn’t they agree on this?]

14. The opportunity for future generations to thrive in prosperity and achieve sustainable development must be ensured, including by eliminating the intergenerational transmission of poverty and hunger, inequality and injustice, and acknowledging the special challenges faced by the most vulnerable countries, in particular African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States,

15. The promotion of intergenerational solidarity, as well as intergenerational dialogue, and social cohesion is an indispensable part of the foundation for the prosperity of future generations and, in this regard, the role of families as contributors to sustainable development must be recognized,

[IOJ note - What does it mean that the role of families as contributors to sustainable development must be recognized?]

16. A clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, where humanity lives in harmony with nature, must be created and maintained by urgently addressing the causes and adverse impacts of climate change, and scaling up collective action to promote environmental protection,

[IOJ note: Enough with the climate scam UN!]

17. The promotion of the responsible and ethical use of science, technology and innovation, guided by the principles of equity and solidarity, is necessary to foster an open, fair and inclusive environment for scientific and technological development and digital cooperation while bridging the scientific, technological, and innovation divides, including digital divides, within and between countries,

[IOJ note - By ethical use of science they mean the opposite and pretend an experimental mRNA needle in every arm and digital takeover of information using punishment of the exercise of your rights is for your benefit! - Good on the Member States for not agreeing to these… so far!]

18. The achievement of gender equality, the empowerment of all women and girls, and the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind are necessary requirements for a sustainable future,

19. The full and equal participation of persons with disabilities of present and future generations in society, including the opportunity for them to be actively involved in decision-making processes, is critical to ensuring that no one is left behind,

20. The elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as the achievement of racial equality and the empowerment of all people, are required for a prosperous and sustainable future,

21. An inclusive, transparent and effective multilateral system is essential to enhance international solidarity and cooperation, rebuild trust and create a world that is safe, just and sustainable, where human dignity is ensured.

Commitments

Guided by these principles, we hereby pledge to:

22. Promote international stability, peace and security, including by seeking a safer world without nuclear weapons, where conflicts and crises are resolved through peaceful means,

[IOJ note - this means UN disarmament - take every gun on Earth and give them to UN]

23. Ensure peaceful, inclusive and just societies, while addressing inequalities within and among nations and the special needs of developing countries, as well as people in vulnerable situations,

24. Implement policies and programmes to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls, eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence, harassment and abuse against women and girls, including sexual and gender-based violence, and ensure women's full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision making in all spheres of society,

25. Eliminate all forms of persistent historical and structural inequalities, including by acknowledging, addressing and remedying past tragedies and their consequences, and eradicate all forms of discrimination,

26. Honor, promote and preserve cultural diversity and cultural heritage, as well as languages, knowledge systems and traditions, and foster intercultural and interreligious dialogue, including through strengthening international cooperation on the restitution to countries of their cultural properties, recognizing that this will ensure mutual understanding, tolerance and inclusion,

27. Recognize, promote and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, their territories, lands and ecosystems, while safeguarding their traditions, spiritual beliefs and ancestral knowledge, and ensuring their opportunities for participation in decision-making,

[IOJ note - nah - we don’t give a crap about Indigenous participation! - rejected.]

28. Undertake comprehensive and targeted strategies to achieve inclusive economic growth and sustainable development, food security, and the eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, and to combat the feminization of poverty, in order to meet the needs of the present generations, achieve global resilience and establish a more prosperous foundation for future generations,

29. Prioritize urgent action to address critical environmental challenges, as well as climate change and its adverse impacts, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, noting the importance for some of the concept of “climate justice”, and implement measures to reduce disaster risk and build resilience, reverse the degradation of eco-systems, and ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment,

30. Harness the benefits of existing, new and emerging technologies and mitigate the associated risks through effective, inclusive and equitable governance at all levels, scaling up collaboration to bridge the digital divides within and between developed and developing countries, increasing capacity building efforts in the field of science, technology and innovation, and promoting the transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms.

[IOJ note - this is way to vague to be valid and is subject to gross misinterpretation and abuse- they BETTER NOT agree to this! Good God!]

31.Strengthen cooperation among States in their response to demographic trends and realities, such as rapid population growth, declining birthrates and aging populations, as well as in addressing the interlinkages between population issues and development across all regions, taking into account the needs and interests of present and future generations, including children and youth, and the substantial contributions of older persons to sustainable development efforts,

32. Strengthen cooperation among States to ensure safe, orderly and regular migration between countries of origin, transit and destination, including through expanding pathways for regular migration, while recognizing the positive contribution of migrants to inclusive growth and sustainable development,

33. Invest in accessible, safe, inclusive and equitable quality education for all, including physical education and sport, and promote opportunities for lifelong learning, technical and vocational training, and digital literacy, allowing for the intergenerational acquisition and transfer of knowledge and skills to advance the prospects of future generations,

34. Protect the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, through universal health coverage, and strengthened and resilient health systems, as well as equitable access to safe, affordable, effective and quality medicines, vaccines, therapeutics and other health products, to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for present and future generations. Actions Acknowledging the primary role and responsibility of governments, at all levels, in line with their respective constitutional frameworks, towards safeguarding the needs and interests of future generations, we will implement, institutionalize and monitor the above commitments, in national, regional and global policy-making by:

[IOJ note - we pray that this [non]“vaccine” crap FAILS, FAILS & FAILS SOME MORE! - We really need to protest, PROTEST & PROTEST SOME MORE!!!!]

35. Leveraging science, data, statistics and strategic foresight to ensure long-term thinking and planning, and to develop and implement sustainable practices and the institutional reforms necessary to ensure evidence-based decision-making, while making governance more anticipatory, adaptive and responsive to future opportunities, risks and challenges,

36. Ensuring inclusive and equitable access to knowledge, science and information, while promoting innovation, critical thinking and life-skills to create generations of citizens that are agents of positive change and transformation,

37. Strengthening our systems of national and global accounting, including by promoting the use of forward-looking, evidence-based impact assessments, developing stronger anticipatory risk analyses and using measures of progress on sustainable development that complement and go beyond gross domestic product,

38. Investing in capacity to better prepare for and respond to future global shocks, crises and challenges, and using evidence-based planning and foresight to avoid and mitigate risks, while ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable do not bear disproportionate costs and burdens of mitigation, adaptation, restoration and resilience building,

39.Undertaking a whole-of-government approach to coordination, including at the national and local levels, on the assessment, development, implementation and evaluation of policies that safeguard the needs and interests of future generations,

40. Enhancing cooperation with stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the scientific and technological community and the private sector, and encouraging intergenerational partnerships, by promoting a whole-of-society approach, to share best practices and develop innovative, long-term and forward-thinking ideas in order to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations,

[IOJ note - we like strengthening civil society participation, but are concerned about the cherry picking of globalist civil society entities over grass roots groups - see article below]

41. Equipping the multilateral system, including the United Nations, to support States, upon their request, in their efforts to implement this Declaration and embed the needs and interests of future generations and long-term thinking in policy-making processes by fostering cooperation and facilitating greater use of anticipatory planning and foresight, based on science, data and statistics, and raising awareness of and advising on the likely intergenerational or future impacts of policies and programmes,

42. Fostering an organizational culture that is future-oriented and mainstreamed across the United Nations system in order to facilitate science- and evidence-based decision-making by developing diverse capabilities, including anticipatory planning, foresight and futures literacy, and systematically promoting long-term and intergenerational thinking at all levels,

43. Recognizing the important advisory and advocacy role that the United Nations should play with respect to future generations, we:

Take note of the Secretary-General’s proposal to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations to support the implementation of this Declaration; and Decide to convene an inclusive high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on future generations that will review the implementation of this Declaration during the 83rd Session of the General Assembly and provide updates on the actions taken to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations; and Request the Secretary-General to present a report on the implementation of this Declaration for consideration at the high-level plenary meeting to be held during the 83rd Session of the General Assembly.

*end*

Help Support This Demand & Legal Work

Subscribe now

Share

The “silence procedure” is expected be implemented any minute for the other documents associated with the Summit of the Future, September 22-23, 2024.

READ THE DOCUMENTS BEING NEGOTIATED RIGHT NOW TO BE ADOPTED IN 3 WEEKS AT SUMMIT OF THE FUTURE:

Summit of the Future

Pact for the Future

Declaration on Future Generations

Global Digital Compact

Share

Help Support This Demand & Legal Work

Leave a comment

Sign the 2 US bills to exit UN on Dr. Rima Laibow’s site - preventgenocide2030.org

We oppose United Nations Agenda 2030

Easy. Sue the WHO for the global attack!

With Mpox incoming in mere days (and lucrative gene and cell therapy experimental toxin deals underway for Mpox “vaccine” interventions) shouldn’t we hustle and get to the bottom of proving the truth that the last fake PHEIC and pandemic was a fraudulent ATTACK directed and controlled by WHO that meets every requirement for a crime against humanity? At least in our humble opinion that’s what we believe.

Below is a video we made to enlighten you all to the key facts as far as how to prove if the government response for covid (or if any widespread and systematic attack) could constitute a knowing and preplanned, well coordinated attack on our rights and the legal requirements to be prosecuted as a crime against humanity.

Let’s all get up to speed on the rules for crimes against humanity because we are all victims and we all know other victims of this attack. It’s awful.

When Interest of Justice says we are hell bent on ACTUALLY suing WHO, Pharma and Member States in a real court to Stop [“public health” biotech - censorship] crimes against humanity, we mean it, because it MUST be done if we care about our collective future and if we ever expect to be fully freed from “public Health” experimentation and the incessant biotech public health attacks on our rights!

HUGE moves about to be made - but ONLY possible with generous supporters that care about litigation to protect humanity from the last and next fake WHO PCR based “pandemic”

Donate To Sue The WHO

Share

Subscribe now

Legal Lesson 1 (Full IOJ legal law and activism series to follow over the next 3 months - Stay tuned & help us Stop Crimes Against Humanity by Suing the WHO - IOJ’s FINAL Round of Funding Drive to file the lawsuits begins NOW)

Crimes Against Humanity vs Genocide (Sue the WHO - Isn’t this Important?)

Notice: Text of video is copied below!

The current legal framework outlined in the Rome Statute: Crimes against humanity differ from genocide in several ways.

• Firstly, they were recognized during the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, which is distinct from the crime of genocide.

• Secondly, unlike genocide, there isn't a specific treaty dedicated to crimes against humanity; instead, they're included in various tribunal statutes, such as those from Nuremberg, ICTY, ICTR, and now Article 7 of the Rome Statute.

The definition of crimes against humanity has evolved over time. Initially mentioned in the London Charter and later in tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the concept has been refined up to its current form in the ICC. Notably, these crimes do not require an armed conflict backdrop, differing from war crimes and the crime of aggression. This represents a shift from the Nuremberg Charter, which limited crimes against humanity to acts related to World War II, partly due to potential accusations of hypocrisy given the colonial histories of certain Allied nations.

A key distinction between crimes against humanity and genocide is the lack of a need for discriminatory intent in the former. While both can involve similar acts, crimes against humanity do not require the intent to destroy a group, which is essential for genocide.

Most people do not realize that there's no hierarchy among international crimes; all are grave and demand serious responses. This lack of hierarchy means it is often easier to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity than for genocide, as proving the specific intent required for genocide can be more challenging.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as various acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians, with knowledge of the attack. These acts range from murder and enslavement to sexual violence and apartheid, among others. The list is extensive and covers actions that target civilian populations on a large scale.

These acts must be part of a widespread or systematic attack, highlighting a threshold of scale. This criterion was introduced during the Tribunal for Rwanda and marks a change from earlier definitions.

To distinguish crimes against humanity from genocide, remember that the former involves a widespread or systematic attack, while the latter requires specific intent to destroy a group.

In our next lesson, we'll explore the essential elements of crimes against humanity, particularly the concept of a widespread and systematic attack directed against civilians.

*end*

Heads up: Our Sue the WHO - Stop Crimes Against Humanity lawsuit frenzy is kicking into high gear! Expect huge moves over the upcoming days and next 3 months or so.

COVID and Mpox diagnostics are part of a systematic and widespread attack by WHO to push toxic non vaccine experiments that murder and harm! The laws and courts exist to seek justice. We must continue to fund the Attorneys to fruition. We are so close. Let’s pay the Attorney’s & file this!

Don’t let them get away with it!

Share

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

If you have not signed the Statement of Facts to tell the NIH, HHS and the World Health Organization that they can take the PCR test and instead of shoving it up noses they should…..Well, we won’t go there…

Read and Sign below! Sign & Share!

Notice and Statement of Facts - PCR Fraud!

Other related Articles by IoJ:

Watch IOJ’s Chief Scientist Dr. Yeadon (who is preparing to testify against WHO DG Tedros for Crimes Against Humanity & Toxic Experimentation), read Margaret Anna Alice poem ‘Mistakes were not made - An Anthem for Justice’

Let’s do a little lesson in LAW today and a brief related explanation about what Interest of Justice is doing to help. This is a bit long, but there is a lot to explain on this subject and it’s all key to peoples understanding of law, the courts and this censorship case.

People are saying the Supreme Court “sided” with Biden and approved censorship last week, but please read this to consider if the decision is correct legally under common law rules! Ethically the decision is not sound, but legally speaking its solid as a rock.

Most importantly the explanation in detail is to help other cases avoid the pitfalls so they can win!

Share

Interest of Justice gives our thoughts on the controversial ruling from Supreme Court in Murthy v Missouri & explains HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CASE:

FIRST issue - Supreme Court was unable to decide IF the challenged censorship was a government action! We would NORMALLY get mad and say the censorship was government action… BUT there is a problem because Supreme Court tossed the case for lack of standing and therefore could not reach the merits of the key issue of if the censorship was government or State activity:

“Because we do not reach the merits, we express no view as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action”. - Supreme Court

Second issue -

“Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts.” - Supreme Court explains the main fundamental flaw, and they are correct in our opinion!

We kept wondering the same thing as Supreme Court noted, WHY weren’t the Social Media Platforms sued to not censor? (and why not sue the WHO because HELLO they are still asking countries and social media to censor any dissent with the private international organizations crappy science. No one wants to sue the WHO but us, really???)

Why sue the US government only? Epic failure!

Well dear readers, in Murthy v Missouri the U.S. shows how RIGID common law is again, and how it’s JUDGE made, so it’s tough to win. The rules are tough. The equity was on the Plaintiffs side according to the 5th Circuit lower court ruling (and it is true that the US constitution did merge equity and common law in Article 3) but they lost due to strict rules of standing held by the very, very strict common law rules of procedure.

There were a few reasons for the court saying the plaintiffs had no standing to sue. We will go over the issue of standing below in detail to see if the court was wrong or right.

When the Gore vs Bush case lost, it was because the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because they didn’t prove THEIR votes in Florida with a “hanging chad” was denied due to the issue of a “hanging chad” that misconstrued their vote in the voting machine misreading their vote. There was no injured party plaintiff with standing, the plaintiffs just felt the need to make things fair, but lacked a personal nexus.

No plaintiff with actual standing means NO CASE, even if the right thing to do would be to nullify what seemed like George Bush Jr’s stolen election, taken from Gore. (not that Gore would have been any better, obviously, in hindsight). Same thing goes here.

In Costa Rica the government would have LOST this same case, “Article 3 standing” be damned. The misuse of power of the Administration to ask social media for censorship would NOT be tolerated, because we have a really cool thing here called Administrative Contentious law… It punishes abuse of power and protects rights. Its created under the Costa Rican constitution Article 49.

You can’t pay social media or coerce them to censor your Citizens, OK government?

COSTA RICA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 49. A contentious-administrative jurisdiction is hereby established as a function of the Judicial Branch for the purpose of guaranteeing the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions and any other entity of public law. The misuse of power shall constitute grounds for challenging administrative acts. The law shall protect, at very least, the personal rights and legitimate interests of those governed.

The Administrative law of Costa Rica is way better than USA and many other countries because the Constitution puts the personal rights and legitimate interests of those governed over Administrative abuses and misuses of power, and the Administrative Contentious law is special because it directly allows standing to be expanded to “groups with diffuse interests” so the narrow standing is greatly expanded and basically anyone has right to sue to declare and restrain government misuse of power. At the bottom we put the full Administrative Contentious law on standing to sue in Costa Rica for the die hards to read.

This is so important as you will see, because we can sue in the Administrative Contentious court and win on this censorship issue, and in fact, we are doing exactly that as part of our main case that is getting much, much nearer to filing.

There is also the very real issue of the censorship being considered “persecution of groups” punishable under Rome Statute 7 for being a crime against humanity. International Crimes against humanity are punishable in Costa Rica under Universal Jurisdiction and the system can prosecute ALL wrongdoers no matter where the crime occurred, or the wrongdoers nationality. Censorship to us here at Interest of Justice is the exact definition of an attack on civilians of persecution of groups of WHO SCIENCE DISSENTERS!!!!!! We are in process of BOTH ways of suing.

IOJ legal fund is here to help HUMANITY! We have a HUGE case against the censorship, non vaccines, Agenda 2030 and other attacks and lies by WHO & Governments. We have been working on getting the Nuremberg Case back into court and are close - please help us pay the Attorney who we are meeting next week. We are including censorship and ALL of it as a single case - The one case to rule them all. We CANNOT continue to actually accomplish our mission without support and we are once again in red alert! Thank you for your support in this critical time as we are so close to filing the worlds most important lawsuits and are IN PROCESS now against WHO!

Help Justice For Humanity Legal Fund

As you can see below, we should NOT rush building our case to prove all the covid misuses of power, because every detail matters to win... or to lose, as in the case of Murthy v Missouri, where the Supreme Court just refused to hear the case of the government censoring it’s own citizens bi-proxy through social media coercion.

They did NOT lose because of the facts. They lost because they failed to put key facts in their case in their own record that would have overcome the deficiencies in the record noted by Supreme Court. Its critical to realize that. We explain more below.

Also of note, the court claimed the behavior of the government asking social media to censor certain narratives could be in the past, based on the timeframe of known censorship 2021-2022 and to presume it will continue, well that’s just “hypothetical and conjectured”, so - you LOSE. NO standing for you… NO voice. No case. Done. Fin.

Below is a small part from the summary of the Murthy v Missouri ruling from the Judge, which had many reasons for the courts reasoning on the Plaintiffs lack of common law standing, but this is just one issue that we will discuss today:

“a “right to listen” theory of standing”

See Murthy v Missouri Ruling HERE

Over time we will go through ALL the reasons the court used to reject hearing the case, so we can all learn and GET AROUND THESE BLOCKS to stop government censorship attacks on free speech!

Not only could we sue in Costa Rica on our own censorship issues (which of course we are building our case dear readers, do not worry), the Justices in U.S. have clearly TOLD the plaintiffs how to refile, because the plaintiffs failed to attach certain required evidence and utterly failed to claim the correct things!!! Their original complaint was sadly just too narrow and had they simply included a few more key facts to overcome certain legal blocks, it is very clear the Supreme Court would have GRANTED it!

From Murthy v Missouri

A “right to listen” theory of standing

The plaintiffs next assert a “right to listen” theory of standing. The individual plaintiffs argue that the First Amendment protects their interest in reading and engaging with the content of other speakership..on social media. This theory is startlingly broad, as it would grant all social-media users the right to sue over someone else’s censorship— at least so long as they claim an interest in that person’s speech. While the Court has recognized a “First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,” the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 762.

Lets dissect that part of the ruling above for CLUES:

JUDGES GIVE CLUE - Do you SEE it?:

Notice to readers:

The US Supreme Court standard has long been to: establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560.

To be clear the elements of standing you must prove by common law are:

• distinct and palpable injury, meaning actual, concrete and particularized

• can not be a hypothetical or conjectured injury

• The claimed injury must be directly attributed to the challenged conduct

• The court can redress the injury with what you ask for

Question to readers:

Did the individual plaintiffs meet the requirements for standing under US common law Article 3 jurisdiction in the Constitution? Supreme Court elaborates below:

Attempting to satisfy this requirement, the plaintiffs emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits, and activists. But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm. They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently “concrete and particularized.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560.

Second, The State plaintiffs:

The state plaintiffs assert a sovereign interest in hearing from their citizens on social media, but they have not identified any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow. And States do not have third-party “standing as parens patriae to bring an action against the Federal Government” on behalf of their citizens who have faced social-media restrictions. Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 295.

Pp. 27–28. 83 F. 4th 350, reversed and remanded. BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote that the case is:

one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years." He stated that the respondents had brought enough evidence to suggest the government's actions were unconstitutional, but that "the Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think. That is regrettable.”

What if the 6 Justices of the court that rejected hearing the case are RIGHT under the doctrine of common law Article 3 standing and the precedents in the case law they quoted? Start over! Re-file! Let’s win this!

BUILD THE BEST RECORD TO WIN!

HOW TO FIX A CENSORSHIP CASE IN UNITED STATES:

The Justices ALWAYS give the plaintiffs a clue how to fix the case in their rulings by telling you the blocks they have - you just have to listen, fix your case & not insist on appealing or giving up losing battles because you think the rules should be interpreted differently, which waste more time and resources, and is a failing plan:

To beat government directed censorship in US:

• The INDIVIDUAL plaintiffs could re-file under “right to listen” theory of standing by proving specific instances of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm.

• The STATE plaintiffs could re-file under “right to listen” theory of standing by proving and identifying any specific speakers or topics that they have been unable to hear or follow.

• Getting a LOT of discovery up front about your name in government records will help your own court RECORD to be impeccable when filed. This is required so when it gets up to Supreme Court and is lucky enough to be heard you can rest assured you did your best job and gave the court NO way to reject your case, and so you can properly and unassailably show the court why and how you legally deserve the relief they have the power to grant you in an Article 3 court of record.

To fix the censorship issue globally…

IOJ has some big plans to Stop Global Censorship and it will start with our main case in Costa Rica against the government and their cronies at World Health Organization and United Nations Trusted News Initiative.

We have Article 3 standing to sue, AND we also have standing to sue under the following laws of Costa Rica.

Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code Costa Rica ARTICLE 10. CHAPTER II LEGITIMACY

1) They shall have standing to sue:

(Just the key parts are pasted below)

a) Those who claim that legitimate interests or subjective rights are affected.

c) Those who invoke the defense of diffuse and collective interests. (This is why we can sue for YOU)

(2) Those who have a legitimate individual or collective interest or subjective right in respect thereof, without the need for an act of individual application, may directly challenge regulatory provisions.

(4) Any interested party whose legitimate interests or subjective rights have been affected may request the declaration, recognition or reestablishment of a legal situation, with or without pecuniary compensation.

Share

Subscribe now