Judiciary Authorities of the Court
Statutory Authority for Independent Jurisdiction
Specific provisions of United Nations conventions establish inherent statutory authority of independent and supra-governmental universal jurisdiction for an IGO Court of Justice, directly from conventional international law, which is binding upon all countries (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38):
Basic human rights include meaningful access to Justice through an “independent” and “international” Court (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28), providing “customary Justice” (UN Basic Principles of Justice, Article 7) by the independent Judiciary profession as “other bodies” without government influence, thereby having “universal jurisdiction” (UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 4, 5, 12, 14). An “inter-governmental organization” (IGO) Court of “independent judicial authority” has the right to assert universal jurisdiction “at the international level” (UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 5, 9.2, 9.3(c), 9.4), and such independent “professional judges” have “exclusive authority” without government interference in “judicial decisions” (UN Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4).
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) was strategically established by the independent Judiciary profession, specifically engineered in every detail, to wholly embody and fully implement all relevant statutory requirements of international law. This results in the Court possessing inherent statutory authority to assert its universal jurisdiction worldwide.
The primary basis for the official powers and authorities of the Court is its inherent statutory authority, directly from the United Nations framework of conventional international law, as the most official authorization and most public evidence conclusively proving its reality and legitimacy. This authority from specific provisions of public law cannot be denied by any person, nor by any country, nor even by the UN itself.
To eliminate any potential influence by any particular country, upholding independence as the basis for its statutory authority, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is licensed by the collective of Member States of the supporting inter-governmental organization (IGO), through its Charter. Member States of the host IGO are not permitted direct membership in the Court, and thus have no involvement in its independent Judiciary functions, only indirectly supporting the Court (IVU, Inter-Governmental Charter, Article 35.5). The Court also holds diplomatic status as an autonomous Official Body of the IGO, thus having statehood as a “subject of international law” (UN Law of Treaties, Article 3), invoking the principle of non-interference by any States.
As a result, the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) is the first human rights Court in history to have overcome the inherent limitations of formation by “treaty”. As the Court is not “created” by countries, it firmly stands upon its own supra-governmental authorities of the independent Judiciary, therefore carrying the full legal weight of true universal jurisdiction.
In practice, enforcement powers are most effective with the cooperation of countries. This is provided by the Member States of the Court as an IGO, as well as by other cooperating countries which are friendly to human rights and committed to the Rule of Law.
However, a practical problem arises when a violating country refuses to “recognize” Judiciary authority, and insists upon policies which flagrantly disregard established international law. The solution to this problem is the inherent statutory authority of universal jurisdiction of the Court. This alone provides a solid legal and political basis for cooperating countries to take even extraordinary measures, to enforce the warrants, orders and judgments of the independent Judiciary.
Mandatory Obligation of Enforcement by States
A Court of Law of the independent Judiciary possesses the inherent statutory authority, by mandatory force of conventional international law, to issue Enforcement Orders which automatically trigger the binding obligation of all States to enforce its Judgments and Orders.
The United Nations declared that “international law contains the obligation to prosecute… in accordance with international obligations of States… as provided for in the applicable statutes of international judicial organs”, and that States are strictly required “in accordance with international law… [to] assist international judicial organs”, to cooperate with the principle of “universal jurisdiction”, to “enforce valid foreign legal judgments”, and to “provide… effective mechanisms for the enforcement of… valid foreign legal judgments” (UN Remedy for Violations of Human Rights, Preamble: ¶8, Articles 4, 5, 17).
International law mandates that “It is the duty of each State to provide adequate resources to enable the Judiciary to properly perform its functions” including enforcement (UN Independence of the Judiciary, Article 7).
International law requires that “Each State has a prime responsibility and duty to… implement all human rights… to create all conditions necessary… to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice… to ensure that the rights and freedoms… are effectively guaranteed.” (UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Article 2)
These mandatory obligations of enforcement are fully binding upon all countries, even non-signatory countries, regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38).
Any and all State agencies or officials who refuse or otherwise obstruct these fundamental obligations of enforcement thereby themselves commit a violation of international law: “No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms” (UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Article 10). Such non-compliant officials are directly subject to “prosecution of crimes committed by public officials, particularly… abuse of power [and] violations of human rights and other crimes recognized by international law” (UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Article 15).
Legal Bases of Judiciary Protected Status
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), with its Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ), is an inter-governmental Court of Law, with supra-governmental universal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law (UN Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 10, 28; UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14; UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2; UN Justice for Abuse of Power, Articles 5, 7; UN Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 17.1, 37, 40). Its official powers and authorities are fully binding upon all countries (UN Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: ¶1, ¶10, Articles 3, 4), even non-signatory countries, regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38).
Officers of the Court hold international supremacy of Judiciary authority, with power to command support of domestic law enforcement worldwide (UN Independence of Judiciary, Article 7; UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 4, 17; UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 12.2-12.3), strictly protected from any and all interference, with absolute immunity (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 1, 2, 4, 16, 18), as an “Internationally Protected Person” (UN Internationally Protected Persons, Article 1(b); 18 USC 1116(b)).
The principles of Judiciary authorities and immunities fully “apply equally to lay Judges” (UN Independence of Judiciary, Preamble: ¶10), such that protections are not limited to Presiding Judges, but also include all investigating Instruction Judges, enforcement Compliance Judges, Judiciary Security magistrates, Arbitration Judges, and Judiciary administrators, who are not required to be career legal or judiciary professionals.
Criminal Penalties for Offenses Against the Judiciary
There are strict and severe criminal penalties for any and all forms of threats, defamation or interference against any Court or its Judiciary officials, punishable with mandatory enforcement worldwide:
All Judiciary officials of the Sovereign Court (SCIJ) and Arbitration Court (ACIJ) are “entitled to special protection” as an “internationally protected person”, as “any official or other agent of an international organization of an inter-governmental character” (IGO). It is a major international crime to commit “any attack on [their] person… or dignity” including against reputation by means of defamation. (UN Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Articles 1(b), 2.3.)
No Defamation Denying Authority of the Court – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation denying the legal fact and reality of its inherent statutory authorities of the Judiciary as proven by conventional international law:
Internationally protected persons specifically include all Judiciary officials (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4; 18 USC 1116(b)(4)(B)) of any “international judicial body” or “other body” of the independent Judiciary (UN Remedy for Human Rights, Articles 5, 12, 14), as an “inter-governmental organization” of “judicial authority” (UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 5, 9.2). Mandatory protection thus applies to all Judiciary officials of any such public institutions (18 USC 1116(b)(5); 18 USC 112(c)).
The Court, as an IGO Official Body exercising statehood in diplomatic relations, is also protected by law under UN Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, against “all forms of interference, direct or indirect” (Preamble) in its “internal and external affairs (Annex: Preamble), “from any campaign [of] propaganda” by defamation (Article 2: Section 2(j)).
The Court will not be put on “trial by propaganda” in the “court of public opinion” by criminally illegal false defamation against its Judiciary status as proven by public law: The Court will not be pressured to compromise Judiciary security by disclosing its internal legal evidence to defaming parties; The Court will fully prove its official status to law enforcement agencies, directly and privately, for active criminal prosecution of such offenses against the Court.
No Defamation Claiming Need for Recognition – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation claiming it is not “recognized” by a particular State, which a private party is not in a position to know and cannot prove, and is irrelevant:
Judiciary protected status fully applies to all States by mandatory force and effect of conventional international law, which is binding upon even non-signatory countries, and regardless of “recognition” (UN Law of Treaties, Article 38; 18 USC 1116(b)(2)).
No Demands to Violate Privacy & Security – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by demands to reveal personal private identities of individual Presiding Judges, which targets and exposes them to further crimes against the Judiciary:
Under UN Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, Judiciary security is strictly “secured by law” (Article 11), and “assignment of cases to Judges within the Court… is an internal matter of judicial administration” (Article 14), protected by “Judiciary secrecy” as “confidential information” which the Court “shall not be compelled” to disclose (Article 15).
All Courts have the absolute right to strict Judiciary security for the personal safety of all Judiciary officers (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 4, 11; UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Articles 12.2-12.3; UN Internationally Protected Persons, Preamble: ¶2, Article 4). All Judiciary officers also have protected basic human rights to personal security against “interference with one’s privacy” or “attacks upon one’s honour and reputation” by defamation, to privacy protecting such personal security (UN Human Rights, Articles 12, 3; UN Civil & Political Rights, Articles 17, 9), and to “safe working conditions” in general (UN Economic & Social Rights, Article 7(b)).
No Defamation of Court or Officials – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation claiming conflict of interest or alleging involvement of any potential Judiciary official with defamation claiming to discredit such official:
Under UN Principles on Independence of the Judiciary, the only lawful challenge to a Judgment is to exercise “any right of appeal”, to petition the Court for an Amended Judgment based on new evidence, or to petition the Court for a “disciplinary procedure” of institutional review of the Presiding Judges (Article 16). Any proper “complaint made against a Judge” to the Court requires an internal “fair hearing” which “shall be kept confidential” (Article 17), and is thus protected by mandatory “Judiciary secrecy” of the Court (Article 15).
Any complaint properly filed with the Court must demonstrate apparent bias, by proving a substantive defect of fact or law in the Judgment, as the basis for remedy by internal discipline and issuance of a corrective Amended Judgment.
No Defamation Against Access to Justice – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation accusing a Judiciary official of being a Presiding Judge in one’s own case, which such person is not in a position to know and cannot prove:
All Judiciary officials retain their absolute protected human right to “equal protection of the law” (UN Human Rights, Article 7; UN Civil & Political Rights, Article 26), and right to “equal access to Justice” (UN Remedy for Human Rights Violations, Preamble: ¶4, Articles 3(c), 11(a), 12); UN Principles of Justice for Victims, Article 4). It is only required that any Court official who is a plaintiff or petitioner recuse oneself from being a Presiding Judge in that case, for a different Presiding Judge to decide it impartially and fairly (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 2, 6, 8).
Precisely to guarantee that impartiality, all Judgments of the Court are signed and certified by the Chancellor of the Chamber of Presiding Judges (IVU, Inter-Governmental Charter, Article 32.7), who is privy to the “internal matter” of “assignment of cases to Judges” which is otherwise confidential for Judiciary security (UN Independence of Judiciary, Articles 14-15).
No principle nor any theory of law exists by which a person could be deprived of their basic human right of access to Justice, merely by being a Judiciary official or administrator of the Court which has jurisdiction to uphold their rights. Court staff will not be reduced to defenseless targets and victims of criminals, merely by the threat of potential defamation from adverse parties, only because they help the Court to provide Justice to others.
No Avoiding Jurisdiction of an Enforcing State – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by reason of either the offender or the targeted official being outside of an enforcing country, which is irrelevant:
All States are required to prosecute any crimes against the Judiciary whenever “committed in the territory of” or by a “national of” that State (UN Protected Persons, Article 3(b)-(c)). Judiciary officials are thus protected even when “outside” that State (18 USC 1116(c)), and against offenders who may be “outside” that State (18 USC 878(d)), regardless of whether the offense “might take place wholly or partly” outside an enforcing State (UK Serious Crime Act 2007, Schedule 4, Part 1, Part 2.1(d)).
No Avoiding Jurisdiction for Contempt of Court – No offender can avoid criminal penalties for violations against the Court by defamation denying the legal fact and reality of its universal jurisdiction by statutory authority of conventional international law:
Under UN Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, by committing any offenses against the Judiciary, the offender thereby becomes subject to the universal jurisdiction of the inter-governmental Court whose officials are protected, in addition to the national jurisdictions of related countries (Article 8.4). Ironically, by defaming the Court claiming it lacks jurisdiction, an offender thereby enters, triggers and submits oneself to its jurisdiction. The Court may thus apply and enforce all manner of escalating Contempt of Court Orders, involving both punitive fines and imprisonment.
Imprisonment for Crimes Against the Judiciary – The universal criminal penalties for offenses against or interference with the Judiciary as internationally protected persons are evidenced by their application in United States Federal Criminal Law:
Any “attempts to intimidate, coerce, threaten, or harass” any Court of Law or any Judiciary official (i.e. defamation), or any threats to do so (i.e. threatening defamation), are punishable by 5 years imprisonment (18 USC 112(b)(2); 18 USC 878(a)), and if “in connection with any extortionate demand” (i.e. to change or rescind a judgment under threat) are punishable by 20 years imprisonment (18 USC 878(b)).
Any of the above in “retaliation” for asserting lawful rights and authorities (i.e. retaliation against a counter-party, affected party or Judiciary official) constitutes a felony crime of “Victim or Witness Intimidation” (UN Right to Protect Human Rights, Article 12.2), punishable by an additional 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 1513(e)).
Unlawful combination or cooperation with any person (i.e. an associate or media outlet publishing defamation) for any of the above is also constitutes a separate felony crime of “Conspiracy Against Rights”, punishable by an additional 10 years imprisonment (18 USC 241; 18 USC 1513(e); 18 USC 1951(a)).
Any online posting on the Internet committing any of the above crimes thereby constitutes illegal contraband (15 USC 1125(b)) and must be destroyed by the user and/or service provider (15 USC 1118). Providers have no immunity for “harassment”, illegal content or criminal content (47 USC 230(b)(5), 230(e)(1)). Once notified of offending content, a provider loses any immunity for all of the related criminal violations (17 USC 512(c)(1)(A)(i),(iii)).
Any defamation filed with a government agency, as a purported “complaint” challenging or denying the Judiciary status of the Court, is universally a crime of making “false reports” to authorities. It does not need to be subjectively “defamatory”, but only needs to be provably “false”, to constitute a punishable criminal offense:
Such false complaints, in addition to being criminal harassment, would also be a direct attack against the diplomatic relations of the Court for its law enforcement cooperation, and thus an international crime of illegal “interference in [its] external affairs” by “propaganda” of defamation (UN Interference in Affairs of States, Annex: Preamble; Article 2: Section 2(j)). This is prosecuted as the felony crime of “false statements” to government agencies, punishable by an additional 5 years imprisonment (18 USC 1001(a)).
Arrest by Interpol Notices and Extradition
Member States and other States supporting the host inter-governmental organization (IGO) Ignita Veritas United (IVU) can cause Interpol “Red Notices” to be issued and published, based upon International Arrest Warrants ordered by the Sovereign Court (SCIJ), through their respective Interpol National Central Bureaus (NCB). Such cooperating States can also pursue extradition to secure due process with the Court, and to enforce resulting criminal penalties within their own national Justice and prison systems. (IVU, Inter-Governmental Charter, Article 35.5(c)). Extradition for crimes against the Judiciary is fully authorized without need for any extradition treaty (UN Internationally Protected Persons, Article 8.2).
Economic Enforcement by Credit Reporting
As an inter-governmental organization possessing statehood as a “subject of international law” (UN Law of Treaties, Article 3), the Court holds immunity of its economic “property, rights and interests” from State Courts (UN Immunities of States, Articles 5, 6.2(b)), to directly enforce its monetary Contempt of Court Orders without recourse to any State Court, as a Creditor by its own Judiciary authority.
As an alternative to, in the absence of or in addition to criminal prosecution for imprisonment, as an official and lawful Creditor in its own right, the Court can register a Contempt of Court Order with monetary penalties as a debt obligation, directly with the major international Credit Reporting Agencies.
The offender’s personal, corporate or institutional Credit Report will thus prominently reflect a Contempt of Court Order, indicating the legal fact of a criminal violation. This will cause the cancellation of credit cards, closure of bank accounts, prevent loans or even vehicle leasing or property rental, and cause failure of due diligence for employment or business transactions, unless and until the penalty is paid to the Court.
This public legal notice is certified and binding (17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)), giving all potential adverse parties or third-party offenders actual or constructive legal notice of the nature and penalties of the relevant criminal offenses.
Payment of Court Costs Protected by Law
All Court costs of the Arbitration Court (ACIJ) and Sovereign Court (SCIJ), and all contempt and punitive fines, are for the express purpose of exercising and implementing the basic human right of access to Justice. All activities of the Court inherently involve, and a significant portion of all Court costs directly include, promoting and protecting human rights.
Under the UN Declaration on the Right to Protect Human Rights, “Everyone has the right… to receive and utilize resources [funds] for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 13).
Therefore, any interference with any payment to the Court by any financial institution or payment services provider shall constitute, and shall be prosecuted as, a major criminal violation of international law against basic human rights. Any such interference will trigger automatic escalation to the higher Sovereign Court (SCIJ) for criminal law investigation, prosecution and enforcement.
Legal Notices on Sovereign Diplomatic Status
The Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) is an inter-governmental organization (IGO) as an instrumentality exercising the sovereign authority of its member states, thus possessing autonomous statehood (UN Jurisdictional Immunities of States, Article 2.1(b)(iii), Article 5), conducting external affairs as an institution of its member states, thus holding full sovereign privileges and immunities (UN Inadmissibility of Interference in Affairs of States, Preamble: Point 1, Section 2(e), Section 3(a)), as a non-territorial state (UN Diplomatic Relations, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)).
Diplomatic status is invoked with all privileges and immunities by presenting “Diplomatic Credentials” as issued (UN Diplomatic Relations, Article 13), exempt from accreditation or embassy registration (UN Diplomatic, Articles 1(i), 3.1(a)), without requirement of a consular post (UN Consular Relations, Articles 3, 1(d), 17.1), regardless of recognition (UN Law of Treaties, Articles 3, 38). IGO Officers do not engage in commerce, retaining full immunities (UN Consular, Article 57). Immunities fully apply by the fact of sovereignty alone (UN Diplomatic, Articles 22-36; UN Consular, Articles 40-57). High Officials and the Directional Secretariat hold absolute immunity regardless of scope of functions (ICJ Congo v. Belgium, Articles 51-55).