50 signatures reached
To: UK Supreme Court & The Attorney General
The International Bill of Human Rights.
To The Supreme Court and the Attorney General.
Both parties need to issue a joint 'formal interpretation' of the significance of the International Bill of Human Rights, which consists of a number of Treaty documents agreed with the United Nations. Because the UK Government(s) have been acting in violation of it for decades. Even the Supreme Court itself and its predecessor the House of Lords, has ignored or misinterpreted its significance too.
So they must admit their own guilt of failing to act on this, by ensuring that Parliament had respected these rights in all of its UK laws. And also explain how they propose to put this right for any citizens whose rights have already been violated by any acts of the judiciary and from which date they consider it came into effect. Bearing in mind the documented opinions of the UN's Human Rights Committees and Human Rights Council/(formerly Commission), addressed to the UK and/or all UN Member States.
Both parties need to issue a joint 'formal interpretation' of the significance of the International Bill of Human Rights, which consists of a number of Treaty documents agreed with the United Nations. Because the UK Government(s) have been acting in violation of it for decades. Even the Supreme Court itself and its predecessor the House of Lords, has ignored or misinterpreted its significance too.
So they must admit their own guilt of failing to act on this, by ensuring that Parliament had respected these rights in all of its UK laws. And also explain how they propose to put this right for any citizens whose rights have already been violated by any acts of the judiciary and from which date they consider it came into effect. Bearing in mind the documented opinions of the UN's Human Rights Committees and Human Rights Council/(formerly Commission), addressed to the UK and/or all UN Member States.
Why is this important?
In the judgement by the Supreme Court on the 30th May 2012, in the Julian Assange extradition case, [2012] UKSC 22 {published as UKSC_2011_0264_ Judgement on their website} - Lord Phillips and others referred to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was set out through the United Nations in 1969.
However, their comments seem to have been limited to Part III, Section 3 paragraphs. These only deal with the “Interpretation of Treaties”, whereas the two foregoing sections 1 & 2 dealt with the “Observance and Application of Treaties”.
Will the Court therefore confirm, or deny, the significance of these parts of the Vienna Convention? And also state in detail how any UK Laws, including the secondary legislation known as the Civil Procedures Rules, have ever fully complied with the States ‘legally binding obligations’ to respect and give effect in its domestic legislation to all International Human Rights Treaties, including The International Bill of Human Rights.
The latter includes within it, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated in its Article 10, that - “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”.
Although, the wording was changed in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to - “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”.
The Civil Procedures Rules for England & Wales, since 1998 at least if not before, do not seem to have been compatible with either of these fundamental rights and principles.
Otherwise why would any Judge be allowed to issue any orders “without a hearing” or strike out any defences filed by any defendant, also without a guarantee of a ‘fair hearing’ beforehand?
Surely such ‘acts’ are a direct and clear violation of those rights and are, or should have been, prohibited by virtue of Article 30 of the Universal Declaration and Article 5 of the two International Covenants, which form the rest of the International Bill of Human Rights?
They must also therefore accept and admit that such acts, by any State bodies, are also a violation of Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention itself. Therefore logically the entire ‘English/UK legal process’, which can readily deny anyone in Civil Proceedings the absolute right to a ’fair and public hearing’ is flawed. Whereas it is everyone's inviolable and inalienable right, to have a full and equal hearing under all International Law.
They should also examine and confirm the compliance of such procedures throughout the whole of the UK with these absolute rights. Can the Supreme Court also provide statistics to back up any claims by it, that these assertions are unfounded, if that is their belief?
By stating how many Civil Court Judgements are issued by UK Courts, without a hearing year on year? If no such records exist, then how can they be sure that these basic rights have not been violated by the judiciary with impunity?
Moreover, how can the public be sure that they will get or have had a fair hearing, if a claim is, or has been made against them under such a fundamentally flawed and illegal process?
I would also refer them to UN General Comments No 13 from 1984 and No.32 from 2007 by the Human Rights Committee. The latter of which also stated that “Article 14 contains guarantees that States parties must respect, regardless of their legal traditions and their domestic law”, which must include Civil and/or Criminal Procedures or Rules in any part of the UK or its Overseas Territories.
This seems to tie in directly to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as the International Bill of Human Rights is undeniably such a Treaty. As, surely, are all other International Human Rights Instruments which have been issued by the United Nations and which the UK is party to and has ratified decades ago.
So the people of the United Kingdom need to know,what right does any Judge in any UK Court have to ignore those rights? Or to not be compelled to follow them to the letter in any ‘court of first instance’. It seems that they have, in fact, been doing so on a daily basis for decades now, in England and Wales at least, by using or abusing the Civil Procedure Rules of 1998.
However, their comments seem to have been limited to Part III, Section 3 paragraphs. These only deal with the “Interpretation of Treaties”, whereas the two foregoing sections 1 & 2 dealt with the “Observance and Application of Treaties”.
Will the Court therefore confirm, or deny, the significance of these parts of the Vienna Convention? And also state in detail how any UK Laws, including the secondary legislation known as the Civil Procedures Rules, have ever fully complied with the States ‘legally binding obligations’ to respect and give effect in its domestic legislation to all International Human Rights Treaties, including The International Bill of Human Rights.
The latter includes within it, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated in its Article 10, that - “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”.
Although, the wording was changed in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to - “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”.
The Civil Procedures Rules for England & Wales, since 1998 at least if not before, do not seem to have been compatible with either of these fundamental rights and principles.
Otherwise why would any Judge be allowed to issue any orders “without a hearing” or strike out any defences filed by any defendant, also without a guarantee of a ‘fair hearing’ beforehand?
Surely such ‘acts’ are a direct and clear violation of those rights and are, or should have been, prohibited by virtue of Article 30 of the Universal Declaration and Article 5 of the two International Covenants, which form the rest of the International Bill of Human Rights?
They must also therefore accept and admit that such acts, by any State bodies, are also a violation of Articles 26 and 27 of the Vienna Convention itself. Therefore logically the entire ‘English/UK legal process’, which can readily deny anyone in Civil Proceedings the absolute right to a ’fair and public hearing’ is flawed. Whereas it is everyone's inviolable and inalienable right, to have a full and equal hearing under all International Law.
They should also examine and confirm the compliance of such procedures throughout the whole of the UK with these absolute rights. Can the Supreme Court also provide statistics to back up any claims by it, that these assertions are unfounded, if that is their belief?
By stating how many Civil Court Judgements are issued by UK Courts, without a hearing year on year? If no such records exist, then how can they be sure that these basic rights have not been violated by the judiciary with impunity?
Moreover, how can the public be sure that they will get or have had a fair hearing, if a claim is, or has been made against them under such a fundamentally flawed and illegal process?
I would also refer them to UN General Comments No 13 from 1984 and No.32 from 2007 by the Human Rights Committee. The latter of which also stated that “Article 14 contains guarantees that States parties must respect, regardless of their legal traditions and their domestic law”, which must include Civil and/or Criminal Procedures or Rules in any part of the UK or its Overseas Territories.
This seems to tie in directly to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as the International Bill of Human Rights is undeniably such a Treaty. As, surely, are all other International Human Rights Instruments which have been issued by the United Nations and which the UK is party to and has ratified decades ago.
So the people of the United Kingdom need to know,what right does any Judge in any UK Court have to ignore those rights? Or to not be compelled to follow them to the letter in any ‘court of first instance’. It seems that they have, in fact, been doing so on a daily basis for decades now, in England and Wales at least, by using or abusing the Civil Procedure Rules of 1998.
How it will be delivered
Email them as I don't live in London, unless someone at 38 Degrees can volunteer to hand it in to the Supreme Court.
