“United Nations”, Security Council resolution 1456 (2003):The
International Criminal Court “World Court Justices” [PL-413132] "phishing
site found "operational" and targeting attempted file Breach dated
attack same of +NSA Agent copy hot line mark September 16, 2016 2:57 (PM)
"cyber weapons” 192.185.30.211 - ns344 being “target” “Pro Se Plaintiff”
herein his person(s) “Louis Charles Hamilton II” USN #2721 SS “Cmdr. Bluefin” Bluefin
Inc., having National Security” violation from Targeted surveillance based in foregin government
Russian Federation, Syria, Iraq and Iran in that for each (RICO) conspire
committed Cyber Attack collectively involved to infringe on the sovereignty of
defendant (USA) and achieved to defraud defendant “United States”as a whole as well breach the security on the “United
Kingdom” as being the duty roster “pro se Plaintiff” herein his
person(s) “Louis Charles Hamilton II” USN #2721 SS “Cmdr. Bluefin” Bluefin
Inc., stated ,affirmed before a assumed Honorable United States of America”
Judicial GOP Klansmen stronghold Court of now in the (KKK) sub-partnership with foreign government
Russian Federation, among others foregin government(s) having “completely lot,
stock, and barrels of oil “Brought Out” Defendant GOP Republican Party Judicial
and Congressional government to oblivion, fully aware and quite conscious of
whats happening,but Generation, of infused Race Hate, in a formal “Lynching
Grand Stand Public stetting, leaving these “Whites Bastards” never-ending psychopathy lust for overpower whites supermacey murderous activities on a now
in 2016 International Community Scale of Terrorizing as an “independent
somewhat KKK complex threatens to Negro Slaves Plaintiffs existences by far on
a alarming controlled by GOP Judicial Klansmen Justices, non-compliance's in
their very own rules of governing civil/criminal laws fully voided national
interest of all people of color”, being demonstrated repeatedly by the simple
institute of “Never” actually ending “Slavery Servitude- 2013, while from 1619
– 2013 all Whites Supermacy Government of the GOP, their corporation, society,
business, policy are all to convince their World” the national security best interest of defendant “United States of America” is to (secretly) keep
enslavement for 148 years after 1856 “Civil War” add “Black Code Laws, Jim Crow
Laws, Vagrancy Laws, kidnapping, Lynching, including no respect for the rights
of a Negro Human to even be consider as “human” cus “Great Whiteman” Honorableness Klansmen in Great “white stolen sheet” on a stinky horse say so…? Since fucking
1865 – 2013 and this is the legecy heritage and abusive tolerance the
defendant “United States of America et al” having established this “sideways”
RICO Slave Trade government, now with no “interest having been shown
demonstrated, the “negro” race s of equal citizenship, with the “Mountain of
“Aggravated perjury” committed, past, present and future, to honor the actual “Fraudulent Void defendant 18 U.S. Code § 249
- Hate crime acts, in connection with large whites supermacey uncouth Mississippi
Lynch town USDA backwood red neck government of defendant GOP Republican
Klansmen Congress, corporation, Judicial inbred Pirates, end the aggression,
move direct to seek compensation The “Klansmen Whites Supermacey Rouge Court
committee to be
Pursuant to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
found in its verdict defendant “United States Supreme Court” special whiteman
Plaintiffs, 1619 august 20th forever without “legal merit” citizenship for being
property of “special smart 2016 KKK whiteman” a always Capture” (Negro) nigger
stupid ass slave that the defendant officially United States of America herein having
in breach of its obligations of a claimed 13th amendment granting
freedom of (Plaintiffs slaves) herein already fully international affairs of
sovereignty come into question, being abducted from a foreign place of origin the transported against one on will to now reside still in 2016 (fucked up)
abducted slave with no legal rights or citizenship, under the direct control,
of drunk, drug out, hostile killer whiteman, ignorance of basic facts of under
customary international law not to use force against another human to forced
them into slavery", "not to intervene in negro slave plaintiff legal,
person, family, religious, personal, and prosperity future humane
affairs"and to actually STFU and "not to violate all negro slave
plaintiffs stolen lost “sovereignty", any further in the future time frame
of 2013 – 2016 (December) other then being Negro Slave Plaintiff now all their
living lives actually born (Fucking) slaves since 1865 official “human
property” of a crooked funky lie ass criminal wanted (RICO) slave trade stinky
ugly killer klansmen GOP Government always “Lynching, terrorizing, and
stealing”, legacy 1619 - 2016 (December) which defendant “United States of
America etal, GOP Republican Klansmen Congress, corporation, Judicial inbred
Judges RICO Slave Trade Pirates, being in a cause of action before the “World
Court Justices of The Hague” a direct violation since 1948 – 2013 (65) years
Defendant United States of America kept 44.5 Million Negro Plaintiffs herein
“Enslavement” against their will, without any legal citizenship at all, while
having this same RICO slave trade scheme of things direct at all DNA Negro race immigrants from all sorts of other country of foreign origin come unknowing to
be a “prey” of “Global Whites Supermacey” of the Defendants” United States of
America” et al with all co-defendant(s) herein official being a party to this
rouge slave regime, being in direct conflict of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights assumed by the “Negro
Slaves Plaintiffs herein” by the entire international community generally agreed to be the foundation of
international human rights law.
As
Adopted in 1948, on behalf of “Plaintiffs” Negro enslavement slaves herein
being a directive of defendant (USA) and as such having no jurisdiction over
44.5 “Million Negro Slaves abducted (Plaintiffs)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as present by the “United
Nations” claimed falsely that the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally
binding international human rights treaties. On behalf of Defendant “United
States of America et al and this is not to be ever the legal case in law or
equity It continues to be an non-inspiration to the “Negro Slaves Plaintiffs
herein 2016 in addressing injustices, of these Defendant “United States of
America” et al in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in
our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights as being a
Negro race residing in defendant United States of America Jurisdiction, whom
even defendant “Federal Reserve bank” officially imposed tax on the Negro race
plaintiffs forever to be residing enslave under “America sunshine” paying off a
RICO whiteman loan on never ever having negro citizenship or actual human
freedom born free and equal in dignity and rights of negro nationality, negro place
of residence, negro free in gender, free in national or ethnic origin from even
foreign country of origin, being a person of colour, negro religion, negro language,
only status, in the international community on December 10, 1948 – Feburary 7th
2013 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is (65) years further, Pursuant to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393 (1857) the state of being “aware and conscious of 44.5 Million Negro
Slave Plaintiffs being forever “exploited, bully, abused, lie too, and straight
out stiff armed from ever having civil standing under due process clause of a
dysfunctional defendant GOP Judicial Klansmen strong hold coup whites only
constitutional government built on pillage and plundering, looting human negro
lives controlled by the murderous acts of wrongful deaths cause by “Lynching” a
Negro Neck for the purposed of the opposition of (KKK) para-military to control
the entire defendant (USA) government, by intimidation of a single race of
Negros Race easy to be killed off by massive terrorizing, extortion, bribery since
1619 – 2013 (394) years of a lost government as further time present time frame
the non-critical qualities of unwilling to even protect the legal interest of
the 44.5 Million “Negro Slaves Plaintiffs herein in the direct time frame
committed present by defendant(s)
U.S. District Chief Judge Ron Clark
U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone
U.S. District Judge Zack Hawthorn
U.S. District Judge David Hittner
U. S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.,
U.S. District Judge James E. “Jeb”
Boasberg
U.S. District Judge Keith F. Giblin
U.S. District Judge Melinda Sue
(Furche) Harmon
U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett
U.S. District Judge” Vanessa D.
Gilmore
U.S. District Judge Patrick A. Conmy
U,S. District Judge U.S. Federal Judge
Karen Wells Roby,
U.S Appeal Chief Judge Frank Hoover
Easterbrook
U.S Appeal Circuit Judge Richard Allen
Posner
U.S Appeal Circuit Senior Judge Daniel
Anthony Manion directed all “Plaintiffs Negro Slaves” in their person(s)
As being present further all
“Plaintiffs Negro Slaves” 44.5 Million plus “alive” in their person(s) “Notice
of Motion to strike” Motion to strike “Defendant” United Nations
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (art. 1), adopted by General Assembly
resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, fully void, fraudulent, having no
effect or remedy on behalf of said “Negro Slaves Plaintiffs herein defendant
(USA) Jurisdiction and being a direct cause of Action for Defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland being also Identified as a party to
this action of (65) years of defendant “The United Nations actually an intergovernmental organization to promote
international co-operation, while maintain “Slave Trade with Defendant United
States of America et al”, aid and abetting in the direct and indirect institute
of defendant USA “Black Code Laws”,” Jim Crow Laws”, and “enslavement” while
vagrancy laws were being institutes, with international destruction of every
aspect of human negro race plaintiffs dignity being “enforced” by Co-Defendant
Knights of The Klu Klux Klansmen (1865 – 2016 Dynasty) as defendant Defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland being also Identified as a party to
this action of (65) years on or about 10 December 1948, - 2016 (December) simply said (fuck) 1865 13th
Amendment, of Co- Defendant United States of America et al and their destroyed
human negro race plaintiff living lives as well, as property, chattel, crop,
homes, everything including the defendant (USA) “Freeman Bureau” actually now
in 2016 “Plaintiff Freeman Bureau” to this International Action as such Whites
Only” capitalized (Greedily) on the Murder of 16th President of the United States
Plaintiff Abraham Lincoln after his assassination in April 15th 1865
continual absolute “civil war” each individual Defendant “States” conspire in
1865 time line years to present time
frame of 1948 Defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland being also Identified as a party to
this action of (65) years (RICO) international co-defendant having for said
(65) years on behalf of 44.5 Million Negro Slaves Plaintiff, and and unknown
amount of “Millions of the Same DNA Negro race immigrants Plaintiffs arrival from
other country of orgin being a tricked Slave and official property of defendant
as a whole, “Prima Ficia Tort” on or about
10 December 1948, - February 7th 2013 for exactly (65) when
co-defendant United States of “Mississippi” herein free “pro se” Plaintiff
Louis Charles Hamilton II (USN) # 2712 “Cmdr. Bluefin” in his person, and 44.5
Million Negro Slave Plaintiffs Defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland flat out refuse to sanction, embargo,
penalty, punishment, deterrent, threatened “Defendant United States of America
and Co-Defendant State of Mississippi” real life penalty for disobeying law or
rule of ending “Slavery” within the International Community and all Immigrants
unknowingly being a party to this “International Slave Trade “ (RICO) enslavement
scheme of things in direct conflict of defendant (USA) required freedom of the Negro Slave Plaintiff
collectively by the 1865 ratified 13th amendment …? Being a direct cause of
action of 148 years physically delinquent in said “Niggers free from white man”
As said RICO international slave trade “Defendant“ United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland 1000% conscious, fully functional
keeping a blind eye aid and direct abetting in being the international primary
entity government crucial to suppy enslavement of 44.5 million failure,
Defendant “United Nations” forever Pursuant to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
to even consideration, on behalf of 44.5 “Million Negro Slave
Plaintiffs abducted slaves since 1619
august 20th to actually international legally make a stand, file a
note, in protection of the Civil rights of all Negro Slave Plaintiffs herein quite
oddly Defendant “United Nations” forever even flat out refuse to sanction, embargo,
penalty, punishment, deterrent, threatened or even allow all international
communities conduct business with a “Slave Trade “Defendant United States of
America and all Co-Defendant “Federal Reserve Bank”, Slave Trade Corporations,
NSADQ, Co- Defendant “cotton” driven for
unjust enrichment defendant State of Mississippi” and in doing so defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland engaging
“legally/civilly/criminal/and gross neglect
flat
out end slavery of defendant for (65) official yers being in the duty to so do,
defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland engaging “legally/civilly/criminal/and
gross neglect also sought fully to discriminate,
gainunjust enrichment and continue
“Slavery Servitude” within defendant United States of America et al as a
“Whole” until Mississippi free “pro se” Plaintiff (Hamilton) II in his person
Presidential First Family and all 44.5 Million Negro Plaintiff(s) herein their
person, on or about Feburary 7th 2013 (65) years defendant having a
“Monetary interest” in “International Slave Trade “ with defendant United
States of America et al and al collective defendant herein fully described each
indivuially and collectively being held As said “Defendant“ United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland
“Notice of Motion to strike” Motion to
strike “Defendant” United Nations UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(art. 1), adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December
1948, fully void, fraudulent, having no effect or remedy beings (negro) race
plaintiffs 44. 5 plus Million born a slave of defendant “United States of
America from 1865 – 2013 as such never having no equal citizenship in dignity
and rights being established under a whites only constitution of defendant Klansmen
whites supermacey society of defendant “United States of America , as such the defendant
“United Nations” The International Bill of Human Rights All human is a Fraud
piece of (Lie) “Snake Ink Fraudulent Trash” with false claims we Negro
Plaintiffs Slaves beings are actually born free and equal in dignity and rights
within Defendant United States of America et al having “same equal citizenship in dignity and rights being
established under a whites only constitution…? of defendant Klansmen whites supermacey society
of defendant “United States of America , in providing just protection, dignity,
and civil rights other than “slavery servitude” on behalf of all said “Negro
Slaves Plaintiffs herein residing with the defendant (USA) Jurisdiction as of
this undersigned date since 1948 being a direct cause of Action for Defendant “United Nations” Address: Palais des Nations,
1211 Genève, Switzerland being a “Defendant” and defendant “United Nation” this
The International Bill
of Human Rights All human, removed from the records of defendant “United States
of America” et al as pertaining falsely to 44.5 Million still enslavement Negro
Slave Plaintiffs collectively since 1619 – 2013
Fact Sheet No.2 (Rev.1), The International Bill of Human Rights
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed
with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of
brotherhood. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (art. 1), adopted by General
Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Contents: · Background ·
Universal Declaration of Human Rights · International Covenants on Human Rights
· Worldwide influence of the International Bill of Human Rights · Annex: The
International Bill of Human Rights - Universal Declaration of Human Rights -
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition
of the death penalty Background The International Bill of Human Rights consists
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. Human rights had already
found expression in the Covenant of the League of Nations, which led, inter
alia, to the creation of the International Labour Organisation. At the 1945 San
Francisco Conference, held to draft the Charter of the United Nations, a
proposal to embody a "Declaration on the Essential Rights of Man" was
put forward but was not examined because it required more detailed
consideration than was possible at the time. The Charter clearly speaks of
"promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or
religion" (Art. 1, para. 3). The idea of promulgating an
"international bill of rights" was also considered by many as
basically implicit in the Charter. The Preparatory Commission of the United
Nations, which met immediately after the closing session of the San Francisco
Conference, recommended that the Economic and Social Council should, at its
first session, establish a commission for the promotion of human rights as
envisaged in Article 68 of the Charter. Accordingly, the Council established
the Commission on Human Rights early in 1946. At its first session, in 1946,
the General Assembly considered a draft Declaration on Fundamental Human Rights
and Freedoms and transmitted it to the Economic and Social Council "for
reference to the Commission on Human Rights for consideration . . . in its
preparation of an international bill of rights" (resolution 43 (I)). The
Commission, at its first session early in 1947, authorized its officers to
formulate what it termed "a preliminary draft International Bill of Human
Rights". Later the work was taken over by a formal drafting committee,
consisting of members of the Commission from eight States, selected with due
regard for geographical distribution. Towards the Universal Declaration In the
beginning, different views were expressed about the form the bill of rights
should take. The Drafting Committee decided to prepare two documents: one in
the form of a declaration, which would set forth general principles or
standards of human rights; the other in the form of a convention, which would
define specific rights and their limitations. Accordingly, the Committee
transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights draft articles of an
international declaration and an international convention on human rights. At
its second session, in December 1947, the Commission decided to apply the term
"International Bill of Human Rights" to the series of documents in
preparation and established three working groups: one on the declaration, one
on the convention (which it renamed "covenant") and one on
implementation. The Commission revised the draft declaration at its third
session, in May/June 1948, taking into consideration comments received from
Governments. It did not have time, however, to consider the covenant or the
question of implementation. The declaration was therefore submitted through the
Economic and Social Council to the General Assembly, meeting in Paris. By its
resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, the General Assembly adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the first of these projected
instruments. Towards the International Covenants On the same day that it
adopted the Universal Declaration, the General Assembly requested the
Commission on Human Rights to prepare, as a matter of priority, a draft
covenant on human rights and draft measures of implementation. The Commission
examined the text of the draft covenant in 1949 and the following year it
revised the first 18 articles, on the basis of comments received from
Governments. In 1950, the General Assembly declared that "the enjoyment of
civic and political freedoms and of economic, social and cultural rights are
interconnected and interdependent" (resolution 421 (V), sect. E). The
Assembly thus decided to include in the covenant on human rights economic,
social and cultural rights and an explicit recognition of the equality of men
and women in related rights, as set forth in the Charter. In 1951, the
Commission drafted 14 articles on economic, social and cultural rights on the
basis of proposals made by Governments and suggestions by specialized agencies.
It also formulated 10 articles on measures for implementation of those rights
under which States parties to the covenant would submit periodic reports. After
a long debate at its sixth session, in 1951/1952, the General Assembly
requested the Commission "to draft two Covenants on Human Rights, . . .
one to contain civil and political rights and the other to contain economic,
social and cultural rights" (resolution 543 (VI), para. 1). The Assembly
specified that the two covenants should contain as many similar provisions as
possible. It also decided to include an article providing that "all
peoples shall have the right of self-determination" (resolution 545 (VI)).
The Commission completed preparation of the two drafts at its ninth and tenth
sessions, in 1953 and 1954. The General Assembly reviewed those texts at its ninth
session, in 1954, and decided to give the drafts the widest possible publicity
in order that Governments might study them thoroughly and that public opinion
might express itself freely. It recommended that its Third Committee start an
article-by-article discussion of the texts at its tenth session, in 1955.
Although the article-by-article discussion began as scheduled, it was not until
1966 that the preparation of the two covenants was completed. The International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights were adopted by the General Assembly by its
resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. The first Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the same
resolution, provided international machinery for dealing with communications
from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set
forth in the Covenant. Universal Declaration of Human Rights The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly
as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end
that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration
constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect
for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and
observance, both among, the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples
of territories under their jurisdiction. Forty-eight States voted in favour of
the Declaration, none against, with eight abstentions. In a statement following
the voting, the President of the General Assembly pointed out that adoption of
the Declaration was "a remarkable achievement, a step forward in the great
evolutionary process. It was the first occasion on which the organized
community of nations had made a Declaration of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. The instrument was backed by the authority of the body of opinion of
the United Nations as a whole, and millions of people -men, women and children
all over the world- would turn to it for help, guidance and inspiration. The
Declaration consists of a preamble and 30 articles, setting forth the human
rights and fundamental freedoms to which all men and women, everywhere in the
world, are entitled, without any discrimination. Article 1, which lays down the
philosophy on which the Declaration is based, reads: All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The
article thus defines the basic assumptions of the Declaration: that the right
to liberty and equality is man's birthright and cannot be alienated: and that,
because man is a rational and moral being, he is different from other creatures
on earth and therefore entitled to certain rights and freedoms which other
creatures do not enjoy. Article 2, which sets out the basic principle of
equality and non discrimination as regards the enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, forbids "distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status". Article 3, the first cornerstone
of the Declaration, proclaims the right to life, liberty and security of person
-a right essential to the enjoyment of all other rights. This article
introduces articles 4 to 21, in which other civil and political rights are set
out, including: freedom from slavery and servitude; freedom from torture and
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to recognition
everywhere as a person before the law; the right to an effective judicial
remedy; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; the right to a fair
trial and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; the right to
be presumed innocent until proved guilty; freedom from arbitrary interference
with privacy, family, home or correspondence; freedom of movement and
residence; the right of asylum; the right to a nationality; the right to marry
and to found a family; the right to own property; freedom of thought,
conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; the right to
peaceful assembly and association; and the right to take part in the government
of one's country and to equal access to public service in one's country.
Article 22, the second cornerstone of the Declaration, introduces articles 23 to
27, in which economic, social and cultural rights -the rights to which everyone
is entitled "as a member of society" -are set out. The article
characterizes these rights as indispensable for human dignity and the free
development of personality, and indicates that they are to be realized
"through national effort and international cooperation". At the same
time, it points out the limitations of realization, the extent of which depends
on the resources of each State. The economic, social and cultural rights recognized
in articles 22 to 27 include the right to social security; the right to work;
the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to rest and leisure; the right
to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being; the right to
education; and the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.
The concluding articles, articles 28 to 30, recognize that everyone is entitled
to a social and international order in which the human rights and fundamental
freedoms set forth in the Declaration may be fully realized, and stress the
duties and responsibilities which each individual owes to his community.
Article 29 states that "in the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law
solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights
and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public
order and the general welfare in a democratic society". It adds that in no
case may human rights and fundamental freedoms be exercised contrary to the
purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 emphasizes that no
State, group or person may claim any right, under the Declaration, "to
engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of
the rights and freedoms set forth" in the Declaration. Importance and
influence of the Declaration Conceived as "a common standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations", the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights has become just that: a yardstick by which to measure the degree
of respect for, and compliance with, international human rights standards.
Since 1948 it has been and rightly continues to be the most important and
far-reaching of all United Nations declarations, and a fundamental source of
inspiration for national and international efforts to promote and protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms. It has set the direction for all subsequent
work in the field of human rights and has provided the basic philosophy for
many legally binding international instruments designed to protect the rights
and freedoms which it proclaims. In the Proclamation of Teheran, adopted by the
International Conference on Human Rights held in Iran in 1968, the Conference
agreed that "the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states a common
understanding of the peoples of the world concerning the inalienable and
inviolable rights of all members of the human family and constitutes an
obligation for the members of the international community". The Conference
affirmed its faith in the principles set forth in the Declaration, and urged
all peoples and Governments "to dedicate themselves to [those] principles
. . . and to redouble their efforts to provide for all human beings a life
consonant with freedom and dignity and conducive to physical, mental, social
and spiritual welfare". In recent years, there has been a growing tendency
for United Nations organs, in preparing international instruments in the filed
of human rights, to refer not only to the Universal Declaration, but also to
other parts of the International Bill of Human Rights. International Covenants
on Human Rights The preambles and articles 1, 3 and 5 of the two International
Covenants are almost identical. The preambles recall the obligation of States
under the Charter of the United Nations to promote human rights; remind the
individual of his responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of
those rights; and recognize that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political
freedom and freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are
created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as
his economic, social and cultural rights. Article 1of each Covenant states that
the right to self-determination is universal and calls upon States to promote
the realization of that right and to respect it. The article provides that
"All peoples have the right of self-determination" and adds that
"By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". Article 3,
in both cases, reaffirms the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of
all human rights, and enjoins States to make that principle a reality. Article
5, in both cases, provides safeguards against the destruction or undue
limitation of any human right or fundamental freedom, and against
misinterpretation of any provision of the Covenants as a means of justifying
infringement of a right or freedom or its restriction to a greater extent than
provided for in the Covenants. It also prevents States from limiting rights
already enjoyed within their territories on the ground that such rights are not
recognized, or recognized to a lesser extent, in the Covenants. Articles 6 to
15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
recognize the rights to work (art. 6); to the enjoyment of just and favourable
conditions of work (art. 7); to form and join trade unions (art. 8); to social
security, including social insurance (art. 9); to the widest possible
protection and assistance for the family, especially mothers, children and
young persons (art. 10); to an adequate standard of living (art. I 1); to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health
(art. 12); to education (arts. 13 and 14); and to take part in cultural life
(art. 15). In its articles 6 to 27, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights protects the right to life (art. 6) and lays down that no one is to be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
(art. 7); that no one is to be held in slavery; that slavery and the
slave-trade are to be prohibited; and that no one is to be held in servitude or
required to perform forced or compulsory labour (art. 8); that no one is to be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention (art. 9); that all persons deprived
of their liberty are to be treated with humanity (art. 10); and that no one is
to be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual
obligation (art. 11). The Covenant provides for freedom of movement and freedom
to choose a residence (art. 12) and for limitations to be placed on the
expulsion of aliens lawfully in the territory of a State party (art. 13). It
makes provision for the equality of all persons before the courts and tribunals
and for guarantees in criminal and civil proceedings (art. 14). It prohibits
retroactive criminal legislation (art. 15); lays down the right of everyone to
recognition everywhere as a person before the law (art. 16); and calls for the
prohibition of arbitrary or unlawful interference with an individual's privacy,
family, home or correspondence, and of unlawful attacks on his honour and
reputation (art. 17). The Covenant provides for protection of the rights to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 18) and to freedom of opinion
and expression (art. 19). It calls for the prohibition by law of any propaganda
for war and of any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that
constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (art. 20). It
recognizes the right of peaceful assembly (art. 21) and the right to freedom of
association (art. 22). It also recognizes the right of men and women of
marriageable age to marry and to found a family, and the principle of equality
of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and
at its dissolution (art. 23). It lays down measures to protect the rights of
children (art. 24), and recognizes the right of every citizen to take part in
the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, and to have access,
on general terms of equality, to public service in his country (art. 25). It
provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal
protection of the law (art. 26). It also calls for protection of the rights of
ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in the territories of States parties
(art. 27). Finally, article 28 provides for the establishment of a Human Rights
Committee responsible for supervising implementation of the rights set out in
the Covenant. Conditions The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that
the exercise of a person's rights and freedoms may be subject to certain
limitations, which must be determined by law, solely for the purpose of
securing due recognition of the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting
the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society. Rights may not be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations, or if they are aimed at destroying any of the
rights set forth in the Declaration (arts. 29 and 30). The International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that the rights
provided for therein may be limited by law, but only in so far as it is
compatible with the nature of the rights and solely to promote the general
welfare in a democratic society (art. 4). Unlike the Universal Declaration and
the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights contains no general provision applicable
to all the rights provided for in the Covenant authorizing restrictions on
their exercise. However, several articles in the Covenant provide that the
rights being dealt with shall not be subject to any restrictions except those
which are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect national security,
public order, or the rights and freedoms of others. Certain rights, therefore,
may never be suspended or limited, even in emergency situations. These are the
rights to life, to freedom from torture, to freedom from enslavement or
servitude, to protection from imprisonment for debt, to freedom from
retroactive penal laws, to recognition as a person before the law, and to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights allows a State to limit or suspend the enjoyment of certain
rights in cases of officially proclaimed public emergencies which threaten the
life of the nation. Such limitations or suspensions are permitted only "to
the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation" and may
never involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex,
language, religion or social origin (art. 4). The limitations or suspensions
must also be reported to the United Nations. First Optional Protocol The first
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
enables the Human Rights Committee, set up under that Covenant, to receive and
consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations
of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Under article I of the Optional
Protocol, a State party to the Covenant that becomes a party to the Protocol
recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider
communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be
victims of a violation by that State of any of the rights set forth in the
Covenant. Individuals who make such a claim, and who have exhausted all
available domestic remedies, are entitled to submit a written communication to
the Committee (art. 2). Such communications as are determined to be admissible
by the Committee (in addition to article 2, articles 3 and 5 (2) lay down
conditions for admissibility) are brought to the attention of the State party
alleged to be violating a provision of the Covenant. Within six months, that
State must submit to the Committee written explanations or statements
clarifying the matter and indicating the remedy, if any, that it may have
applied (art. 4). The Human Rights Committee considers the admissible
communications, at closed meetings, in the light of all written information
made available to it by the individual and the State party concerned. It then
forwards its views to the State party and to the individual (art. 5). A summary
of the Committee's activities under the Optional Protocol is included in the
report which it submits annually to the General Assembly through the Economic
and Social Council (art. 6). Second Optional Protocol The Second Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty, was adopted by the General Assembly by its
resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989. Under its article 1, no one within the
jurisdiction of a State party to the Protocol may be executed. Under article 3
of the Protocol, States parties must include in the reports which they submit
to the Human Rights Committee information on measures taken to give effect to
the Protocol. Article 5 of the Second Optional Protocol provides that, with
respect to any State party to the first Optional Protocol, the competence of
the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from
individuals subject to that State's jurisdiction shall extend to the provisions
of the Second Optional Protocol, unless the State party concerned has made a statement
to the contrary at the moment of ratification or accession. Under article 6,
the provisions of the Second Optional Protocol apply as additional provisions
to the Covenant. Entry into force of the Covenants and the Optional Protocols
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into
force on 3 January 1976, three months after the date of deposit with the
Secretary-General of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession,
as provided in article 27. As at 30 September 1995, the Covenant had been
ratified or acceded to by 132 States: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola,
Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium,
Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic
of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan,
Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab
Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of
America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights entered into
force on 23 March 1976, three months after the date of deposit with the
Secretary-General of the thirty-fifth instrument of ratification or accession,
as provided in article 49. As at 30 September 1995, the Covenant had been
ratified or acceded to by 132 States: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola,
Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium,
Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta,
Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino,
Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
As at the same date, 44 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights had made the declaration under its article 41, recognizing
the competence of the Human Rights Committee "to receive and consider
communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party
is not fulfilling its obligations" under the Covenant. The provisions of
article 41 entered into force on 28 March 1979 in accordance with paragraph 2
of that article. The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights entered into force simultaneously with the Covenant,
having received the minimum 10 ratifications or accessions required. As at 30
September 1995, 85 States parties to the Covenant had also become parties to
the first Optional Protocol: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia,
Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar,
Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia,
Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zaire and Zambia.
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, entered into
force on 11 July 1991, having received the minimum 10 ratifications or
accessions required. As at 30 September 1995, the Protocol had been ratified or
acceded to by 28 States: Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Mozambique,
Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Romania,
Seychelles, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Uruguay and Venezuela. Worldwide influence of the International
Bill of Human Rights From 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
was adopted and proclaimed, until 1976, when the International Covenants on
Human Rights entered into force, the Declaration was the only completed portion
of the International Bill of Human Rights. The Declaration, and at a later
stage the Covenants, exercised a profound influence on the thoughts and actions
of individuals and their Governments in all parts of the world. The
International Conference on Human Rights, which met at Teheran from 22 April to
13 May 1968 to review the progress made in the 20 years since the adoption of
the Universal Declaration and to formulate a programme for the future, solemnly
declared in the Proclamation of Teheran: 1 . It is imperative that the members
of the international community fulfil their solemn obligations to promote and
encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinctions of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinions; 2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
states a common understanding, of the peoples of the world concerning the
inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the human family and
constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community; 3.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as well as
other conventions and declarations in the field of human rights adopted under
the auspices of the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the regional
intergovernmental organizations, have created new standards and obligations to which
States should conform; . . . Thus, for more than 25 years, the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights stood alone as an international "standard of
achievement for all peoples and all nations". It became known and was
accepted as authoritative both in States which became parties to one or both of
the Covenants and in those which did not ratify or accede to either. Its
provisions were cited as the basis and justification for many important
decisions taken by United Nations bodies; they inspired the preparation of a
number of international human rights instruments, both within and outside the
United Nations system; they exercised a significant influence on a number of
multilateral and bilateral treaties; and they had a strong impact as the basis
for the preparation of many new national constitutions and national laws. The
Universal Declaration came to be recognized as a historic document articulating
a common definition of human dignity and values. The Declaration is a yardstick
by which to measure the degree of respect for, and compliance with,
international human rights standards everywhere on earth. The coming into force
of the Covenants, by which States parties accepted a legal as well as a moral
obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, did
not in any way diminish the widespread influence of the Universal Declaration.
On the contrary, the very existence of the Covenants, and the fact that they
contain the measures of implementation required to ensure the realization of
the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration, gives greater strength to
the Declaration. Moreover, the Universal Declaration is truly universal in
scope, as it preserves its validity for every member of the human family,
everywhere, regardless of whether or not Governments have formally accepted its
principles or ratified the Covenants. On the other hand, the Covenants, by
their nature as multilateral conventions, are legally binding only on those
States which have accepted them by ratification or accession. In many important
resolutions and decisions adopted by United Nations bodies, including the
General Assembly and the Security Council, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and one or both Covenants have been cited as the basis for action.
Nearly all the international human rights instruments adopted by United Nations
bodies since 1948 elaborate principles set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights states in its preamble that it developed out of recognition of the fact
that in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of
free human beings enjoyin freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if
conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and
cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights. A similar statement
is made in the preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected
to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
adopted by the General Assembly in 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)), spells out the
meaning of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which
provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. This prohibition was further reinforced by
the adoption in 1984 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (General Assembly resolution 39/46).
Similarly, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the General Assembly
in 1981 (resolution 36/55); clearly defines the nature and scope of the
principles of non discrimination and equality before the law and the right to
freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief contained in the Universal
Declaration and the International Covenants. A similar situation prevails as
regards international human rights instruments adopted outside the United
Nations system. For example, the preamble to the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the Council of Europe at
Rome in 1950, concludes with the following words: Being resolved, as the
Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common
heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take
the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the rights stated
in the Universal Declaration; Article II of the Charter of the Organization of
African Unity, adopted at Addis Ababa in 1963, provides that one of the
purposes of the Organization is "to promote international cooperation,
having due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights". The American Convention on Human Rights,
signed at San José, Costa Rica, in 1969, states in its preamble that the
principles to which it gives effect are those set forth in the Charter of the
Organization of American States, in the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Judges of the
International Court of Justice have occasionally invoked principles contained
in the International Bill of Human Rights as a basis for their decisions.
National and local tribunals have frequently cited principles set out in the
International Bill of Human Rights in their decisions. Moreover, in recent
years, national constitutional and legislative texts have increasingly provided
measures of legal protection for those principles; indeed, many recent national
and local laws are clearly modelled on provisions set forth in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants, which remain a
beacon for all present and future efforts in the field of human rights, both
nationally and internationally. Finally, the World Conference on Human Rights,
held at Vienna in June 1993, adopted by acclamation the Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action, in which it welcomed the progress made in the codification
of human rights instruments and urged the universal ratification of human
rights treaties. In addition, all States were encouraged to avoid, as far as
possible, the resort to reservations (part 1, para. 26). Thus the International
Bill of Human Rights represents a milestone in the history of human rights, a
veritable Magna Carta marking mankind's arrival at a vitally important phase:
the conscious acquisition of human dignity and worth. Printed at United
Nations, Geneva June 1996”
No comments:
Post a Comment