Importance In Context: International Criminal Group Action: Rome 4.XI.1950/ETS 118

B. The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Rome, 4.XI.1950, as codified by the Eighth Protocol (ETS No. 118) of 19 March 1985

i. Request is made by the plaintiff(s) (A.) that reference is made to the violations mentioned in § 8, A.

C. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

New York 10 December 1984.

i. Article 1 – “For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

1. Under Article 1, no lawful sanctions were imposed.

2. Pain and all suffering were inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of the defendant(s) (B. and C.).

3. Torture was inflicted with intended end result being the removal of the plaintiff(s) (A.) offspring.

ii. Article 2 –

§1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction”.

§2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”.

§3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture”.

1. Notwithstanding national legislation in place to protect citizens or subjects from torture, the defendants (B. and C.) opted instead to ignore same legislation in order to pursue the endgame, being the removal of minors from their rightful homes.

2. Further, that the defendants (C.) attempted to justify their actions of removing minors from their rightful homes with the unlawful and oftentimes invalid Court Orders issued by defendants (B.).

3. Further, that the defendants (C.) attempted to justify their continuing torture of plaintiff(s) (A.) and their families by way of same said Court Orders and with further threats of legal action intended to silence the plaintiff(s) (A.) in order to carry out further kidnappings and torturous actions against other family units.

iii. Article 3 –

§1. “No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”

§2. “For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights”

1. The defendant(s) (B. and C.) make no regard for this Article, casting spurious and unfounded allegation to goad interstate extraction of the plaintiff(s) (A.) and/or their offspring, to face systematic persecution from their home state, as stated in previous statement points (see § 8, A. – B.).

iv. Article 4 –

§1. “Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture”

§2. “Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature”.

1. A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his official duties.

2. A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—

i. in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence—

a) of a public official; or

b) of a person acting in an official capacity; and

ii. the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it. 

3. It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.

4. It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of his to prove that he had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct. 

5. For the purposes of this section ―lawful authority, justification or excuse‖ means—

i. in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in the United Kingdom, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom where it was inflicted;

ii. in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside the United Kingdom—

a) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;

b) if it was inflicted by a United Kingdom official acting under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or by a person acting in an official capacity under such law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the part of the United Kingdom under whose law he was acting; and

c) in any other case, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of the place where it was inflicted

6. A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

Considering the seriousness of the crime of torture and the fact that the UK legislature has created and enacted the above Statute, it can be demonstrated that this is but a wistful gesture at best, yet still over thirty years late, and in the case where it is the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) and vicariously the COURT(S) (B.) committing the crime, their actions are covered by local Statute (Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent amendments, and Section 71 of the Serious Organised Crimes and Police Act 2005, among others), immunising them against any public or private prosecution whatsoever. Therefore, it can also be demonstrated that this Act is useless on its own merit.

v. Article 5 -

§1. “Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:”

i. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

ii. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

iii. When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

§2. “Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article”

§3. “This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law”

For the sake of clarity, jurisdiction in all aspects of this Action shall fall within mainland UK encompassing ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES and NORTHERN IRELAND and outlying territories falling within UK Statutory jurisdiction.

vi. Article 6 –

§1. “Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted”

§2. “Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts”

§3. “Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph I of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides”

§4. “When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction”

Consider that due to the clauses present in § 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, neither of the defendants, the FAMILY COURT(S) or the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) ( B. and C.) have ever been prosecuted under UK Statute for torture against a private citizen notwithstanding the fact that such activity is known and documented.

vii. Article 10 –

§1. “Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment”

§2. “Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person”

It is not argued that the information is not there for training purposes, because it is. The plaintiff's representative bundle (Special Exhibit D[6]) shows how such knowledge is used to enforce unnatural behaviours through such techniques as neurolinguistic programming, attachment therapy, rebirthing, pin down, and others.

viii. Article 12 –

“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”.

The UNITED KINGDOM has no independent (therefore competent) Authority to investigate allegations of torture made against LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.), including the POLICE.

ix. Article 13 –

“Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given‖.

Loopholes present in UK legislation mean that it is impossible to bring a prosecution against a LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) (C.) or the FAMILY COURT(S) (B.) system for crimes against citizens.

x. Article 14 –

§1. “Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.

§2. “Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law”

As per (ix. Article 13).