Time for a little round-up on the ongoing Wednesday's Swiss court order violations by Swiss authorities, as introduction to the wider picture, and the upcoming Swiss elections.

On October 4th Crystel Graf's (the minister responsible for child protection and electronic communication) autoreply confirmed once again good reception of the correspondence denouncing the court order and human rights violations committed by her department. She has, as usual, still not taken responsibility. This has been ongoing for at least 30 weeks.

On October 11th, the ongoing court order violation. Children were not presented to the child protection services. Mr. Schallenberger who is responsible for making sure children are presented at 14:00 in the child protection care not even being at the office.

On October 18th Mr. Schallenberger was according to the secretary of the child protection services on holiday. No information had been provided beforehand. Accounting for week 30 of Swiss court order violations by the Swiss child protection services.

Arabelle Scyboz, still listed as the president of the Magistrate's Council which is the judiciary supervising authority, is still violating international and Swiss law on electronic communication and allowing the corruption by the judiciary she is responsible of. She is still banning electronic communication denouncing the heinous human rights crimes committed under her ultimate responsibility, and still denying access to justice.

All of this is possible under the watchful eye of the parliamentary judiciary commission. Their secretary is in copy of the various denunciations. Its president, Céline Dupraz, responded once, on May 8th, confirming:

sa mission de haute surveillance

Its mission of high surveillance of the judiciary, and …

respecter la séparation des pouvoirs

It prefers to respect the separation of powers then investigate the ongoing heinous human rights violations committed by the judiciary it is supposed to be the high surveillance authority of.

Basically the Parliamentary Commission who is supposed to scrutinise the methods and proper working of the judiciary in the interest of the public, says the judiciary can continue to be corrupted and commit human rights crimes.

The president of the parliament, currently Martine Docourt Ducommun, identically fully informed, has never responded or acted.

Nor has the minister of justice and currently acting prime minister, Alain Ribaud, ever responded or acted.

That in Switzerland the fish rots from the head is well documented throughout the +130 posts on the blog. Above is only a succinct overview.

The public who is voting these politicians into power has a universal right to truth about their state officials involvement in some of the worst human rights crimes, and actively helping for those crimes to be covered up. It is more then just monkeys “don't hear, don't see, don't speak” commission by omission to act.

Would you vote for a politician when you know of unalienable evidence of ongoing human right crimes, particularly against children, co-perpetrated and covered-up by those in power?

the veil of democracy and the rule of law used to validate corrupt votes

Under a veil of imposed silence it is the Swiss authorities who ensure the denial of the universal right to truth. The public and the press are terrorised and do not dare to speak up for fear of their authorities retaliating. Reminiscent of the German “wir haben es nicht gewusst” syndrome under the rule of the second world war Gestapo.

Being witness and having evidence to that, I open an additional chapter in my whistleblowing on Swiss authorities corruption. Why would I keep being scared to fully speak up, remain quiet, in the face of the Swiss wishing me dead and do everything to it anyway. Including attempts on my life.

It so happens that due to my privileged position I can document how the fraud in recent votes in Switzerland was organised. With the evidence I have, I can not attest the end result would have been different, but I can attest to systematic electoral fraud.

I can also attest to the prosecutor, Raphael Arn, having to investigate the electoral fraud while being under influence and manipulated. He has to function in his little village of Moutier, which claims the through electoral fraud obtained status of metropolitan city of the Jura. At some 7000 inhabitants, it surely is a joke. Those who follow the blog will recognise Raphael Arn's name from the child sexual abuse cases, and the documented transcantonal influence and threats by authorities he is under, to let child sexual abusers continue their perpetration against children.

I have it on recording, no wonder he did not want the recordings when I presented him the recordings. No wonder he has never acted on the by him received registered mail indicating his office's violations of various human rights.

You see in Switzerland, in light of any kind of wrongdoing, an independent outsider is not used to investigate. A local, subject to local pressures of interest, is used.

Corruption is second nature to the Swiss. Any government official in power has to take an active role in it. The Swiss even have a fancy name for their deliberately organised wrongdoing. They call it “interdisciplinary collegiality”.

Switzerland acclaims its status of superior democracy by ensuring its controllers are locked in this “interdisciplinary collegiality”. Being it the controllers of the parliament, of the judiciary, of the police, of the medical profession, ... all are subject to the same fancy worded mafia get along and shut up praxis.

Bring on the SLAPP's

Due to my eye problems, I've had the luxury of talking on the phone to a few Swiss whistleblowers over the last weeks. People who had the courage to denounce Swiss wrongdoing.

Not one of them knows any whistleblower who has not been persecuted by Swiss authorities. They all suffer SLAPP's – Strategic lawsuits against public participation - and human rights violations in Swiss authorities mostly successful attempts to silence whistleblowers, and allow for corruption to prevail.

The Swiss public believes firmly in their superiority. How can they otherwise when the press, the fourth power, can not speak up under threat of legal action and undue influence of prosecutors into what may and may not get published. The various Swiss journalists I talked to, evidence at hand, are all afraid of one thing: being SLAPP-ed.

As an example, in Switzerland, a criminal complaint alleging calumny takes precedence over any other criminal activity being performed. First the calumny is examined, only if the judiciary decides there is no calumny after years of proceedings, then the criminal activity may be possibly looked into. By then the combination of statute of limitations and destruction of evidence all account for a return to … calumny. Because if they can not condemn the wrongdoing due to the destruction of evidence and/or statute of limitations, well it must be calumny after all.

And for calumny proving, all tools are used. False witness statements, wrong translations, falsified documents, abuse of power, bribery, …

Another Swiss national sport is violating its international obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OECD Anti Bribery Conventions.

Swiss are so infiltrated in those organisations that whenever the international controlling organisms show a pointing finger at Switzerland, as per the OECD example, a simple alleged verbal report suffices to silence the reporting on Switzerland's wrongdoing.

Let me put that in layman's terms: Go to dinner, have a meal, and a pinch of intimidation and threats, and all is wrapped in silence.

In Switzerland, democracy and the rule of law are mirages. The ego of the perpetrators is more important then what they themselves call the “superior interest of the state in the manifestation of the truth”, or combatting corruption.

To the Swiss, the only truth that matters, is making sure no one dares to speak up against corruption, or be warned of the far reaching retaliation, transnational repression, persecution, including attempts on life.

The amount of illegally, without trial, detained people in Swiss prisons on the basis of daring to speak up against corruption is astonishing. Those who spoke up against wrongdoing and before being locked up arbitrarily decide to flee the country face life-long transnational repression and persecution.

Any access to foreign authority positions is abused by the Swiss, for example like I documented in the illegal SIS-II database usage. Which appears to be a systematic abuse in Swiss whistleblower cases.

The renaissance of the methods of the likes of the Nazi, the Khmer Rouge, the Junta, … is happening in Switzerland. The only difference is these human rights violating regimes came to power on the basis of a series of political and economic crises, whilst in Switzerland it happens with the hidden stolen wealth accumulated by these criminal regimes as collateral.

so who are the Swiss voting for coming Sunday?

In absence of the press, the fourth power, legal ability to report Swiss authorities wrongdoing to the public, and in presence of interdisciplinary collegiality disease throughout the controlling of Swiss authorities, I'll let you decide on how you think the Swiss elections will turn out.

I forecast it will be a team of same-old-same-old with a sprinkle of newly controlled interdisciplinary collegial individuals. Some shuffling of positions, and on the country goes for another 4 years of political and judicial corruption galore.

I already extend the invitation to all the world's pedophiles and child kidnappers: flock to Switzerland. The federal minister participates in the denial of child sexual abuse disease in the country, and Swiss kidnapping authorities have their international child kidnapping dictator uninvestigated for over 3 years now. Really, if you are an international child kidnapper or a child sexual abuser, the Swiss will treat you with welcoming reverence, and make sure your wrongdoing never gets actioned against, for if it should even only be mentioned, you have the superior calumny and other human rights violating weapons of mass silencing at your fullest disposal. Including the omerta'd parliament.

Tags: #Rights #Sexual #Kidnapping #Accesstojustice #Whistleblower

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

Today the Federal Prosecutor graced a template response answering yesterday's email. It had already responded back on May 10th 2023.

Basically no one can do any serious harm without the Swiss Federal Prosecutor being competent, but when Swiss authorities or civil servants violate the law as per the Federal Prosecutor's competence, he claims he is not competent. A renewed confirmation the Swiss authorities can do as the pretty please.

Some examples:

Copy of my response, followed by the correspondence received by the federal prosecutor.

response to the Swiss federal prosecutor

Re: AW: 27.09.2023 Continuation of Swiss authorities organised criminality and violations of human rights

Dear Makbule Dügünyurdu,

Thank your for your reply.

Referring to all previous correspondences I once again take note that the Federal Prosecuror's office finds Human Rights violations by Swiss federal authorities, intra-cantonal authorities, civil servants and citizens not of its competence. A non exhaustive list being:

international organised child kidnapping by Swiss authorities, including involvement of the federal central authority and federal judges subject to conflicts of interests, with pay-for-contracts in at least 4 jurisdictions (ES, FR, BE, UK): Trafficking in persons, particularly children. Modern forms of slavery. And others. transcantonal child sexual and psychological abuse, including transcantonal violation of children's protection rights transnational repression, retaliation against and persecution by Swiss authorities, including federal authorities, of whistleblower(s), victims and witnesses of the by Switzerland committed crimes Swiss lawyers and NGO's ganging together, co-intimidating authorities in different cantons and abroad prosecutors being bullied by civil servants and acting to their wishes cantonal, transcantonal, and international corruption violation by Swiss authorities of the universal right to language, electronic communication rights, rights of non-citizens and more.

I thus note the federal prosecurot's office opinion is that the above, among others are not: strongly affecting Swiss interests complex intercantonal or international organised crime offences corruption white collar crime that have an intercantonal or an international dimension offences against the interests of the international community, i.e. fundamental human rights violations

By Swiss authorities kidnapped children in situations of abuse and heinous crimes are due to be identified based on recordings. Any delay and consequences to those children is the result of the denials and violations of Human Rights by Swiss authorities, including your office.

I once again take note that access to justice is denied by the federal prosecutor's office: the packaging of the denunciations does not correspond to your authority's wishes no legal counsel is offered as dictated by international law and repeatedly pointed out This in itself is a violation of Human Rights.

Any eventual inappropriate wording and/or presenting, but not limited to, is henceforth the federal prosecutor's office sole responsibility.

As a whistleblower, victim and witness, under international law I am due protection, assistance and support by your office, including my children, as are other victims and witnesses.

Your office henceforth violates the Swiss constitution, which expressly underlines international instruments dictate over federal and/or local laws and praxis.

Publishing about the Human Rights violations by Swiss authorities, including your office, will continue under the universal right to truth principle, as will the notifications to your office of their ongoing nature.

For the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and have/are being published, in the interest of justice and the public at large.

Without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested.

email by the Federal Prosecutor, claiming incompetence for matters he is competent of

AW: 27.09.2023 Continuation of Swiss authorities organised criminality and violations of human rights

Dear Mr CENSORED,

We refer to your E-mail of 27 September 2023.

As we informed you in our letter dated 10 May 2023, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland is the Swiss Confederation’s prosecution authority and as such has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute specific offences under the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) that are set out in Articles 23 and 24 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC). The prosecution of other offences falls under cantonal jurisdiction.

These offences comprise classic state security crimes, i.e. criminal acts primarily directed against the Swiss Confederation or which strongly affect its interests. They also include complex intercantonal or international organised crime offences (including terrorism and its financing), money laundering and corruption. In certain circumstances, the OAG also has jurisdiction over cases of white collar crime that have an intercantonal or an international dimension. In addition, the OAG is responsible for executing requests for mutual assistance from foreign prosecution authorities. Lastly the OAG is responsible for prosecuting offences against the interests of the international community, i.e. in times of peace, it conducts proceedings relating to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland does not act as a supervisory authority for cantonal or federal administrative, prosecution or judicial authorities. It has no statutory powers whatsoever to review or influence the conduct of any cantonal or federal authorities. As a consequence, it is not possible to submit complaints or requests for investigations relating to these authorities to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.

Your most recent letter contains no indication of any criminal offences whose prosecution falls within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland.

We expressly draw your attention to the fact that we will neither reply to nor retain any further submissions relating to the same or similar matters for which we are not responsible after reviewing them, but will dispose of them without first contacting you.

Thank you for your understanding.

Yours sincerely.

Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland OAG

Makbule Dügünyurdu

Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower #Accesstojustice

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

I am battling with IT, unable to publish a clickable graphic page. So herewith a static picture, and this linked PDF of the picture with clickable links. Underneath the descriptions.

Crystel Graf

Crystel Graf is minister of child protection services, discussed.

• Contacted and complained to repeatedly about the chain of command silencing the corruption and criminality.
• Never acknowledged receipt other then holiday auto-replies. Never acted.
• Perpetrator through commission by omission of international child kidnapping and child sexual abuse.
• Mentioned and referred to throughout the blog.

Christian Fellrath

Christian Fellrath is director of the child and adult protection services, discussed.

• Was allegedly going to investigate/respond claims brought forward, but never did.
• Tried to justify his services actions with a false court order.
• Perpetrator through commission by omission of international child kidnapping and child sexual abuse.
• Mentioned and referred to throughout the blog.

Yanick Bussy

Yanick Bussy is director of the child protection services, discussed.

• Announced an investigation into his department’s wrongdoing, which never substantiated. Both in writing and on recording.
• Perpetrator through commission by omission of international child kidnapping and child sexual abuse.
• Mentioned and referred to throughout the blog.

Sophie Neuhaus

Sophie Neuhaus the Youth Delegate director, discussed.

• Written evidence of personal contact with the child kidnapping, child sexual and psychological violence endangering mother.
• Allegedly shares (or used to share) office with Yanick Bussy
• Never personally contacted.

Sandra Joseph

Sandra Joseph is deputy director to Yanick Bussy. (No need for discussion, never met or had dealings with)

• Former lawyer, hired to help alleviate the child protection service from the accountability of excess wrongdoing legal cases.
• Never met, reputation and gossip alleging violation of children’s rights in favour of women’s claims.
• Lawyer profile link
• Public profile link

Frédéric Schallenberger

Frédéric Schallenberger is the former child protection services director and current social assistant. (To be published)

• False reports, corruption, intimidation of prosecutor, befriends perpetrators and lawyers, endangers children in child psychological and sexual abuse, disclosed intimate details of international child kidnapping and manipulation of foreign authorities in Europe and particularly France, Belgium.
• Active perpetrator violating court orders, kidnapping children, dismissing children spontaneous accounts of child sexual abuse and requests for help.

Manuela de Montmollin

Manuela de Montmollin is a social assistant. (To be published)

• False report, corruption, endangers children in child sexual abuse, disclosed scheme of international child kidnapping and manipulation of foreign authorities throughout Europe and France.

Jérôme Erard

Jérôme Erard is social assistant and substitute to Frédéric Schallenberger. (To be discussed)

• Noted down child sexual abuse and would revert back after reporting to hierarchy.
• Never heard back. Inquired at secretary, left messages, and never called back either.

Adrien Omer

Adrien Omer is a social assistant and sporadic substitute to Frédéric Schallenberger when unavailable. (No need to discuss)

• Mostly kept unaware of the cases, simply executed a task in a courteous manner.

Nicolas Jornod

Nicolas Jornod is the regional child protection office manager. (To be discussed)

• Denied any wrongdoing or corruption in false reports without any investigation.

secretaries

The child protection services secretaries are well informed of the various cases. (To be discussed)

• A few false claims, corruption and interdisciplinary collegiality.

#Rights #Whistleblower #accesstojustice #Kidnapping #Psychological #Sexual

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

KZ asked:

Sorry, where on the Children for Status website do you have the recordings? I can't find them anywhere. I asked the question because you kept mentioning you had the recordings available but I couldn't find them anywhere, so I was interested. I'm sorry you aren't being heard by the authorities.

The First source of Swiss Rights Violation recordings was posted in the beginning of June, now 3 months ago.

In the post I refer the detailed dates and times of the first source of recordings, those with my own children who are by Swiss authorities kidnapped, sexually and psychologically abused. These include several phone calls and meetings immediately prior to and/or after the kids. Accounting for in total some 427 hours.

I honestly have no idea yet how many hours the other, not yet indexed recordings span. I think I am half way through at 41 hours. That's why I have been talking about some 500 hours recordings in total.

Why recordings, and why not release them?

I started recording because of the grotesque unbelievability of what I was witnessing on one hand, and the threats by Swiss judges I was subjected to on the other hand.

There is a huge amount of material, ranging from the criminal behaviour of the Swiss schools and teachers, the child protection services, the judges, the lawyers, the doctors, the pedopsychiatrists, the police, ... You name it, I recorded it.

There is no other way to document the criminal ganging of people to hide their wrongdoing.

The recordings attest to a well oiled criminal enterprise of and by authorities and civil servants. Forget Dallas, this goes well beyond anything most sane people can ever be moved into imagining.

On several recordings you can hear how civil servants discuss their strategy to kidnap children abroad. Such as children's first names, countries, airport to use, who'll buy plane tickets, which judges are inclined and which judges less so, the central authority, involved NGO's, contracts, ... The whole strategy to kidnap children abroad and bring them under Swiss control is mapped out throughout these recordings.

And yet, despite this unalienable evidence, no one is interested.

It would be easy, wouldn't it? Just dump the several GB of data online, for people to make up their own mind. I wonder, will any private person take the time to go through the 500 hours? At a rate of 8 hours a day, non-stop every day, there is 63 days worth of material. That's without the documents...

I can understand for most people it is easier to consider it too big to fathom the possibility.

Who has the recordings?

The Swiss civil judge Yannick Jubin refused in audience to receive my USB stick, whilst the jurisprudence in Switzerland dictates he must receive it.

The Swiss public prosecutor Raphael Arn refused the recordings when I stood in front of him. He bounced back and refused to touch the recording device, yelling at me as if someone was holding him at gun point, with a recording device...

A Swiss bailiff certified the transcription of one recording as counter evidence to the 3 lawyers ganging together against me with one of their many lies. And whilst this is one recording having become an official and incontestable paper trial – evidence of lawyers Marie Berger, Jean-Marie Röthlisberger and Mathias Eusebio ganging together with the perpetrators in lies against a witness, victim and whistleblower – the public prosecutor has as far as I know never done anything to protect the children victims or myself.

The Belgian public prosecutor has received about half the recordings. He tries to refuse the case arguing that it would take too long to go through all the recordings, and denies to request the remainder of the recordings. It is hard to pinpoint a single responsible party here, as it is a different substitute signing, every time.

I have documents showing how the Swiss interfere in the Belgian justice system. Black-on white. I also have recordings of some of it. I guess that's where the Belgian public prosecutor prefers the case to be silenced, their head lies in the balance too.

That is the state of the justice system when authorities are involved in international child kidnapping and child sexual abuse. An all hands on deck need to silence the case, by whatever means, whatever the cost.

So what other reasons for not throwing just everything in bulk online, other then no single person would take the time to go through the recordings in detail like I have done (and keep doing)?

Children are named by first names. Parents are referred by “the mother”, “the father”, not their actual names. Other then the perpetrators who'd immediately be informed about which criminal acts against which children are on recording, only a public prosecutor, talented investigative journalist or private investigator could try to track down these other, to be identified children.

That's where investigative journalists come in?

Most journalists, given the sheer amount of recordings, reply “it's complicated”. Then some journalists have asked “give us the one damning explicit recording”. And when I pointed a recording, as journalists must do, the ask the judge/public prosecutor for comment, only to return:

We can't do anything. It is complicated. Different languages, several wrongdoers, several countries, such a network, …

Ultimately you get the honest answers:

• afraid of journalist career retaliation
• intimidated by the public prosecutor into fear of ending up on the accused bench themselves

Faced with a well oiled criminal enterprise which will not back down and do every criminal act (I've had a few attempts on my life), journalists are moved to think twice. One journalist was fair and square: scared for their kids.

Considering private investigators, the costs and fees associated are excruciatingly expensive. I don't have a dime other then my fingers typing the keyboard of my computer.

And I am denied access to justice in both countries whilst I have the recordings and the documents.

So what's left?

That's where I have been writing, and will keep on writing, in the context of the universal right to truth. This has long evolved from “simple” sexual abuse from a grandparent against my daughter which I have been witness of back in 2018, to large scale corruption going all the way to the highest top of Swiss society, and its criminal transnational influence.

What's astonishing, not a single criminal complaint has been filed since I divulge online. The consequence of any criminal investigation against me for the recordings or what I publish would demand for the recordings to be examined. Exactly what they do not want, because it is them, not me, who would end up in jail.

It is easier for authorities to deny access to justice, and persecute the whistleblower arbitrarily on any cheap thumb sucking fabrication under the cover of the highest judiciary not acting. Such as Arabelle Scyboz, the president of the highest cantonal judiciary, or the Swiss Federal Prosecutor, violating human rights and international instruments, making sure there is no defence made available and no investigation.

In the meantime, business as usual. Children remain psychologically and sexually abused, kidnappings can continue, and children are coerced into to authorities comforting testimonies for which the recordings as counter evidence are denied.

Filthy, disgusting, criminal, corrupt, ... there is no vocabulary suitable to describe the Swiss.

Tags: #rights #Whistleblower #Accesstojustice

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

Whether it is in Belgium or now also in Switzerland, the cases reported in the press are cadencing:

• report on how Belgian journalists suffer repression when publishing on the subject with evidence, such as foreign DNA material in a child's underpants and recordings;
• report on how a Swiss journalist got thrown into jail for investigating child sexual abuse
• a Belgian VIP getting arrested for the possession of Child Sexual Abuse material
• a documentary series on how child sexual abuse in the church in Belgium still suffers from the same mistakes made by justice
• a preliminary report on child sexual abuse in the church in Switzerland

Let's hope the momentum stays, more on that I hope in this weekend's fesip.

With all of these events deserving full attention, spreading knowledge about the widespread phenomenon of omerta in child sexual abuse, my own whistleblowing work is running all over the place, and behind.

Wednesday my children were yet again, for the 25th consecutive week, not presented at the child protection's office. The child protection's office which allegedly has no news about my children. The responsible person being in other meetings whilst he is supposed to execute a court order, …

The secretary was apologetic. She tried to argue she is only the secretary, that she does not know. I replied she does know, every week I call, everyone in their office knows. Then saying I needed to write. I replied both a message and an email are sent every week, but that there never is any reply to the email, nor that the message gets delivery notifications since August 23rd.

Following the phone call, I sent the usual email, and at 4:19 PM suddenly all messages since August 23rd get delivered to the by court ordered person who needs to ensure my children are in his care every Wednesday at 14:00.

In the below screenshot I censored his account identifier so he wouldn't get spammed by people who are just as outraged as I am about the ongoing court order violations, sexual and psychological abuse of children, pay-for-contract international child kidnapping he is part of, which his superiors in command all the way to the minister, as well as the justice system, are fully informed of but do nothing about.

Copy of the email sent Wed, 13 Sept • 2:38 pm

TO: direct perpetrators by hierarchical (co-)responsibility and commission by omission: Crystel Graf, Christian Fellrath, Yanick Bussy COPY: accessory perpetrators by (hierarchical) (co-)responsibility and commission by omission: Arabelle Scyboz, Martine Docourt Ducommun, Alain Ribaux, Stefan Blättler

All herewith held personally responsible for the ongoing and organised corruption and criminality in international child kidnapping, child sexual integrity violations, child psychological integrity violations, child alienation, victim protection violations, witness protection violations, whistleblower protection violations, arbitrary persecution, transnational repression, discrimination on the basis of language-origin-nationality-gender-membership of social group, denial of justice, violation of access to justice, and other human rights violations as evidenced in the 500 hours recordings and documents, gathered and published for the benefit of justice and the public at large under the universal right to truth principle.

Reiterating all previous correspondences and the demands within.

Is added to the list of child and parental human rights violations by Swiss authorities today, 13.09.2023. Are in the meantime co-responsible by omission to act all those copied to the messages.

In total 25 consecutive weeks of Swiss court ordered contact rights violations due to Swiss authorities arbitrary persecution, transnational repression and racism as per defined in international instruments.

According to the OPE secretary, Mr. Schallenberger was present at the OPE, but unavailable for the by court ordered appointment, and my children were once again contrary to said court order not presented in the OPE's care at 14:00. Reiterating the messages to Mr. Schallenberger are not delivered since at least August 23rd 2023, in violation of international law on electronic communication.

I again notify:

I hold personally responsible and accountable as directors of their service Mrs. Graf, Mr Fellrath and Mr. Bussy, fully made aware of the ongoing child sexual and psychological integrity violations as well as the Bern, Geneva, Neuchatel, Jura cantonal and Swiss Federal state for these continuous acts of violence and corruption by the state and its authorities.

Under the universal right to truth, publication of the premeditated criminal acts by the Swiss authorities continues.

Should this correspondence better be addressed by a legal scholar, you are reminded articles 7 to 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and access to justice, are still violated by the Swiss authorities, including yourselves. In particular by the Neuchatel Magistrate's Council and its president violating access to justice under International Law.

Referring to the registered mail received by authorities dated August 14th 2023, June 8th 2023, and all electronic communication defined by International Law, such as email and public posting under the universal right to truth principle.

For the remainder reiterating all previous correspondences in their entirety.

Without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested.

Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

Yes, I know!

I am whistleblowing about Swiss authorities committing the deliberate and organised crimes of Child Sexual Abuse and pay-for-contract International Child Kidnapping. I have some 500 hours recordings, documents, copies of contracts. I have on recording authorities planning the kidnapping of children abroad and finding it is better to leave children from time to time with their child sexual abuser then to protect them. I lived authorities dismissing evidence and make up false evidence in order to do everything they can to keep hidden their heinous denial of child sexual abuse. I am whistleblowing about Switzerland automatically retaliating, transnationally repressing and persecuting whistleblowers. …

Yes, I know!

But what happened today just makes a fully knowledgeable, seasoned and ardent fighter for Child Sexual Abuse victims in Switzerland sick. Switzerland is a country sick beyond help. Switzerland which we all take for granted as being the highest order in Human Rights protections and the rule of law, is the most despicable, victim blaming, disrespectful country in the world. By a long shot.

The report

The report titled “Rapport concernant le projet pilote sur l'histoire des abus sexuels dans le contexte de l'Église catholique romaine en Suisse depuis le milieu du 20ème siècle“ is a work by historians.

You read that right. In Switzerland Child Sexual Abuse is examined by historians. It is not deemed a contemporary problem, but a problem of bygone era's, to be documented by historians.

In addition, it is a pilot project. Indeed, there is such disbelief Switzerland could be a nation like all other nations around the world. Remember, elsewhere 1 in 4 persons has suffered child sexual abuse in their childhood. So the Swiss figured, let's do a test and see how it goes.

Kudos to the historians who dared to take the olympic, Herculean difficult task to lead a pilot project on a subject whose existence in Switzerland is totally denied. Monika Dommann and Marietta Meier, and their team, deserve more then the gold medal.

The pilot project by the historians of Zurich University started in January 2020, and was presented today, September 12th 2023.

Three and a half years to document 1002 cases for which as historians, they were given access to certain archives of bishops.

Their conclusions are manyfold, but a few stand out. Note I have these from press clippings. I have yet to read and verify the below press outburst in the 134 pages report. It not being in English, will take me some time to verify the press said the right things:

• more boys then girls have been subject to child sexual abuse in the church
• records have been removed and destroyed
• 1002 records were examined since the 1950's
• only the tip of the iceberg according to the reporters
• given the culture of silence and non reporting, most victims never dared to speak up

Most of these conclusions had already been alerted by the CECAR, who's been silenced and budget strapped so not much could come out of it. I published about this in the post on Which Swiss NGO's should act in matters of sexual violence on children?.

The shock

Some math to help the Swiss who love numbers when it comes to wealth and profit, but despise numbers when it comes to victims.

In France, the CIASE investigated 330.000 cases for 64 million people. It was admitted there that too many victims choose not to speak, and estimated at least 500.000 victims should be remembered.

9 million people live in Switzerland. Statistically, it means in Switzerland some 45.000 victims are to be expected. Of that, the pilot project looked at 1002 cases. Let's be harsh, and round it off at 2%.

Are the Swiss prepared to take the leap into shedding light on their heinousness as other countries have done? They're in for a shocker starting at 2% …

The church speaks

While the church admits it destroyed records, it pleads guilty for the crime of widespread child sexual abuse. I admit I am surprised about the rush-of-the moment flat out mea-culpa by the Swiss church, I applaud it. It is a first not seen in any other country where the church has always tried to embellish the problem.

Maybe the dissident voices of the church have not yet spoken? Let's wait and see in the coming days.

The Basel Diocese, Bishop Felix Gmür

I reached out to the researchers as I have evidence of wrongdoing in this diocese. Allow me to publish later, once I see whether they reach out or not.

In any case, the Bishop could not be clearer in the press fully acknowledging the church's responsibility.

The minister Elisabeth Baume-Schneider speaks

And this is where I get angry. Really angry. A fine example of how in Switzerland the fish rots from the head down.

The Federal Councillor for justice, the justice minister, Elisabeth Baume-Schneider, is from the Jura.

Here is what she said:

An “alarming” but “significant” study which could bring us to action. this study is alarming, but it is also a significant step towards getting us to act.

I guess the Swiss commander in chief and its public need to think it through whether when faced with child sexual abuse it is appropriate to act or not? From experience I know they do everything to not act, until this day, regardless of 500 hours unalienable evidence.

she criticised a system “that at some point probably chose to protect the institution and the perpetrators more than the victims.

Let me tell you and confirm, I have the evidence the Swiss system systematically choses to protect the institutions and perpetrator to the detriment of victims. What disgusts most is that the report points out this culture, but the minister dares to doubt it with “probably”.

we're out of the emotional side and we have factual elements.

It characterises the total incompetence and incapability of the minister to have any empathy when faced with the most heinous crime that is child sexual abuse. Ask any child sexual abuse victim about emotion versus factual elements. Disgraceful at best.

There is now a real breeding ground on which we can work

As if civil society has not been crying out. Remember for example Incest according to Manon Schick, Mrs. Justice Minister? Wir haben es nicht gewusst!

The courts will now be able to respond to complaints or proceedings that take place as a result of this situation.

This is revolting. Switzerland's courts have been in a constitutional obligation to act for decennia. Last time I published about the monist system is no later then this morning. But the minister is right. I too call for Nuremberg to come down on Switzerland. A public parliamentary investigation into the Swiss authorities organised crime of pay-for international child kidnapping contracts and sexual abuse. But ...

we can only apologise

The minister confirms Switzerland is adamant at violating universal human rights.

• right to protection
• right to support
• right to non recurrence
• right to reparation

Err, no, you get a “we can only apologise” Sorry Mrs. Minister, your advocating against human rights leads to the conclusion you should resign.

but above all we must commit ourselves to ensuring that this is no longer possible

Probably the only “honest” part. Admitting the crime of Child Sexual Abuse is possible in Switzerland today, and that the Swiss “must commit themselves” against it.

those who have not dared to testify to find an environment where they can express themselves so that they can feel better.

WHERE? There is no where in Switzerland where victims can testify without being treated first and foremost as calumny perpetrators. There is no where in Switzerland where people may get help to feel better.

The country is devoid of professionals as per several international reports. Including the Swiss mental health industry itself, like ESPAS, admits there is a lack of adequate professionals.

So minister, unless you go deep, very deep, in your endless holocaust confiscated money pockets, and announce a full remediation programme so the competence in child sexual abuse can not only exist but be broadly, easily and financially accessibly available, you are saying to victims:

“screw you, you're on your own, deal with it yourselves, we, the state, are not going to help you, go away so we don't see you as we don't intent to help you anyway”

That, Mrs Minister, is your message to Child Sexual Abuse Victims today.

Mrs. Minister, you should be ashamed of yourself, and resign. No empathy, no recognition, no assistance for victims who you ostracise and leave to their own damaged person to deal with hurt inflicted upon them as children, silenced by authority, and alone.

Conclusion

The Swiss need to have their head looked into. Seriously.

This is no way for the highest official of a country to deal with a societally silenced and denied pandemic which is so big it is impossible to keep it unacknowledged. Yet the Swiss being interdisciplinary collegial at silence, no wonder omerta among authorities perdures. To then keep going the stigmatisation and dismissal of victims of child sexual abuse is criminal. And there is International law which constitutionally must be executed.

Violations of the Lanzarote convention. Violations of the Convention one the Rights of the Child and its optional protocol. Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Violations of the European Declaration of Human Rights.

No, seriously, this lady's disrespect for victims of the most heinous crime, and the law, is totally unfit for office, and needs to step down.

The country is reputed for its cows and cheese. Today it is yet again showing its real face: a country of sheep mended by wolves who will not hesitate to kill any victim voice, and feast on its cadaver as example for all sheep to never dare to speak up against deliberate state organised wrongdoing in Child Sexual Abuse.

Tags: #Rights #Sexual #Whistleblower #Kidnapping #Psychological

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

• all international instruments and guidelines define “anyone can be a whistleblower”;
• the Council of Europe (CoE) through its conventions provides ambiguity;
• the Council of Ministers (CoM) of the CoE advocates for discrimination against and exclusion of whistleblowers;
• the European Whistleblower Directive excludes even more.

The case of Switzerland ripping off the International anti-corruption Community

Switzerland due to its monist legal system is obliged to execute international conventions. I wrote a full explanation in the post Switzerland and its cantons international obligations, and of course there is the post explaining the United Nations Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

As Switzerland's federal web site clearly underlines:

An international norm approved by Switzerland automatically becomes part of Swiss law. In the hierarchy of legal norms, in principle international law takes precedence over national law. The Federal Constitution requires the Confederation and the cantons to comply with international law.

Switzerland has an internationally recognised track record of silencing corruption, and persecuting whistleblowers. Particularly so when Swiss authorities are involved in the wrongdoing.

On April 11th I posted an overview of whistleblower persecution in Switzerland On May 8th I posted about Swiss violation of whistleblowing protection and about ... and when you thought there is no more ...

As if there are not enough impartial reports and evidence already referenced, herewith some more in the context of the current post series on the subject of states violating whistleblower international law.

Council of Europe

Switzerland joined the Council of Europe (CoE) on May 6th 1963. As a member it holds a number of influential positions in the CoE and related organs, such as:

• the chair of the CoE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. “It promotes the rule of law and defends human rights. It is also responsible for a whole variety of activities that make it, de facto, the Assembly's legal adviser”.
• the GRECO Bureau. It decides who the experts and country evaluation teams are, which countries are visited, and makes proposals.

Switzerland has not joined the Civil Law Convention on Corruption.

On July 1st 2006 Switzerland joined the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption; And its Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption. The declarations and reservations by Switzerland show an intention to limit wrongdoing from being prosecuted.

Just prior to that, Switzerland had been condemned at the European Court of Human Rights for violation of article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights in the context of reporting wrongdoing.

Switzerland has been condemned a number of times by the courts on various whistleblower related issues. Hard headed, it keeps violating whistleblowers rights.

The question is not if Switzerland violates Human Rights. The question is how whistleblowers can achieve whistleblowing in a state where access to justice is denied, whistleblowers are persecuted, and the financial-time-personal consequences linked to whistleblowing are profoundly life impeding.

Whoever blows the whistle on Switzerland is shown by Swiss authorities, without shame and in public, that your life is over.

Indeed, whistleblowers have been arbitrarily condemned and imprisoned. Swiss corruption whistleblowers suffer retaliation, repression and persecution. Trading in influence, intimidation, corruption between lawyers and the judiciary, … You name it and Switzerland has used and will use it against whistleblowers.

The CoE reports on Switzerland show a number of softer problems, such as corruption and lack of transparency in its judicial, parliamentary and electoral system. These problems were first notified in 2016, and are still ongoing. The fact of non compliance since 2007 on various issues leaves little imagination possible.

Though the CoE goes around the hardest subjects, Switzerland does not remediate the softer wrongdoing, whilst seating in important decision making CoE organs.

Bold statements and in vain promises

Transparency, corruption and whistleblowing are prime areas where Switzerland is not interested in change. Every time pressure builds up, Switzerland makes bold statements and promises in the press, its partners, and the reviewing committees of international instruments.

Switzerland does however not follow them through. In so doing it keeps ripping off the international community and deflecting its international obligations.

A simple online search will reveal a stronghold of almost constantly surfacing examples. I give you just a few:

• 2020 loophole in international standards, not acted upon.
• 2022 Suisse Secrets scandal, silenced.
• 2023 beneficial ownership transparency, not proposed to parliament before earliest sometime in 2024.

Bouldering statements end up silenced to maintain the murkiness of Swiss collegial secrecy.

Even when Credit Suisse defaults in part due to the Swiss need to silence the evidence and investigation into its ongoing holocaust wrongdoing, UBS turns it into a record profit less then a year later. More in-depth information is in the Wir haben es nicht gewusst post.

the OECD

For Switzerland the OECD Anti Bribery Convention (ABC) entered into force on July 30th 2000.

Switzerland's OECD reviews over the last 23 years trace Swiss arrogant thwarting of its OECD membership, and its obligations deriving from its voluntary accession to the Anti Bribery Convention. I wonder, how come it is still part of the OECD?

Switzerland has been left doing what it does best: deceiving its international partners to violate its international instruments obligations, without consequences or accountability. It simply continues its self esteemed superior culture of secrecy and corruption.

Switzerland has lied and mislead the OECD on multiple occurrences to obtain favourable reports and deflect criticism. The OECD hoped it would help motivate Switzerland into executing its obligations by having softer worded, motivating recommendations.

In so doing, one could interpret the promises of Switzerland as “bribing” the OECD into being less condemning of Switzerland's deliberate and full blown disdain for the organisation?

The tone changed somewhat in 2020, when Switzerland dumped to the trashcan 20 years of pretending it was working to change.

Switzerland might not fight a war with bullets, but it is fighting a war to maintain its state organised silence and corruption ethos.

I contacted the OECD Swiss reporters to find out what the consequences of the latest report of July 6th 2023 would be and what the next milestones are.

While it is in the public interest to know, the OECD have not responded. I've written twice, and by phone, they refused to comment as well. The OECD apparently does not talk to the public or Human Rights Defenders about the problem Switzerland.

There has also been no response on the request to obtain an English version of the July 6th 2023 additional follow-up report. This while it is in the public interest to know.

From public spanking of Switzerland in 2022, threatening with a high level mission by December, over softening and no mission in December 2022 based on an oral, not written (!) report by Switzerland and the expectation of a written report by June 2023, followed by a delayed, flimsy and deceitful report in July 2023, to silence. No transparency any more.

I beg to know the date and contents of the Swiss oral report, and why its contents is not made public. I beg to know why the “by June 2023” (so before June) report was delayed to July 2023. I beg to know when and how the OECD will make Switzerland accountable for its continued corrupting and ripping off the OECD.

In the name of the public interest, what's going on? And why can't we, the public, know? Is it then a matter of Swiss national security that corruption by Swiss authorities may flourish in Switzerland?

From my personal experience with the Swiss

You can read about some of my personal experiences with Swiss corruption on the blog. A small overview.

Lawyers refuse to do the necessary work afraid for their careers (on recording and in writing). Lawyers get forced by the judiciary to resign from cases. Lawyers refuse to work under the conditions the state imposes on them denying access to justice. Lawyers gang together committing gang crimes.

Civil judges threaten subjects in courts and arbitrarily dismiss evidence. Civil judges call and intimidate foreign courts and judges.

Public Prosecutors confirm it is OK to destroy evidence, and then in absence of evidence persecute the whistleblower.

Police confirms in writing being forced into signalling individuals on false grounds. Police records are truncated by those who have privileged access to police databases.

Alleged witness testimony's, who admit in their testimony to never have seen or had contact with the individual they testify against, get accepted without signature on the document. False documents get confirmed as real. Bailiff examined and confirmed recordings proving the corruption by the state get thrown out.

The Swiss are not even trying to hide their criminality. When people think of banana republic states, one must conclude Switzerland is the school example of how to be corrupt.

And then as whistleblower, you are faced with that, for the rest of your natural life?

No wonder some whistleblowers have:

• taken their lives;
• had attempts on their lives;
• fled the collaboration by the Council of Europe and Schengen zone;
• seeked asylum;
• gone into hiding, hoping they won't be found by the relentless Swiss persecution;
• …

I know of no case where those who blow the whistle on Swiss authorities are not profoundly harmed in their life.

The example of Belgium

Belgium is a party to all conventions mentioned in this post series. Due to the European Whistleblower Directive (EWD) a new, whistleblowing discriminating law was enacted in Belgium at the end of 2022.

The Federal Ombudsman Centre of Integrity (FOCI) was appointed the authority to establish who is a whistleblower in the context of this EWD inspired Belgian law, and the Belgian Federal Institute for the protection and promotion of Human Rights (FIRM) was appointed to execute the support and protections of recognised whistleblowers.

Whilst the FIRM confirmed the FOCI ought to protect and support me as whistleblower in light of international instruments, that all elements under Belgium's International obligations are present, it can not act until such time the FOCI confirms.

The FOCI chooses to restrictively interpret the EWD and Belgian law on the basis of excluding any non work related context.

According to FOCI, a stay at home parent who in the context of their career choice to take care of children, obtains unalienable evidence of state organised corruption, pay-for-contract international child kidnapping contracts from 4 countries over 6 cases involving 11 children and child sexual abuse, with child victims in need to be identified from recordings, and protected, is not a work related context.

The FOCI knowing I am without financial means to take them to court said:

Go to the court, the Belgian and EU law does not allow for us to recognise you as a whistleblower

Any argument on the basis of international instruments such as Belgium's UNCAC obligations to no avail.

The OCMW and CAW refused to confirm the necessary documents giving access to Belgium's prodeo justice system, under the pretext that it is an international and not a national issue. So the FOCI can not be sued, as they asked, for violating international law.

Under Swiss pressure and intimidation in the Belgian judicial system (as per recordings and documents) no access to justice and no protection in Belgium either.

The result is Swiss authorities continued intimidation of the Belgian judiciary, continued International child kidnappings, and the whistleblower left persecuted and aggressed, including attempt on his life which remain uninvestigated till this day.

When Switzerland decides to silence heinous crimes against children, it shows the sorry tramping of wrongdoing reporting rights, whistleblowing, by collegial CoE state authorities, in alleged Human Rights Defending Europe.

• part 1 { Whistleblowers in Europe: lawmakers reduce opportunities to report wrongdoing }
• part 2 { Whistleblowers in Europe: efforts to keep Pandora's box closed }
• part 3 { Whistleblowers in Europe: how states waltz around Human Rights }

*Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower #Accesstojustice

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

• Highly recommended read for this post: part 1.
• ABC: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention
• UNCAC: United Nations Convention Against Corruption
• ISO: International Standards Organisation whistleblower definition
• A whistleblower is any person who reports wrongdoing in good faith. Protection is mandatory.

the Council of Ministers violates the public demands for whistleblower improvement

In short: our governments violate their international obligations and our parliament demanding broad spectrum whistleblower definitions and protections.

The Council of Ministers (CoM), our national ministers deciding law at the Council of Europe (CoE), refuted the work of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), the voice of the European public, on 29 April 2020 with its recommendation 2162 (CMR20)

The PACE in its Resolution 2300 (2019): Improving the protection of whistle-blowers all over Europe (PARes) had underlined the shortcomings and dangers of inadequate whistleblower laws in Europe.

In CMR20, the CoM underlines that it advocates since 2014 against any better CoE legally binding instrument, firmly anchoring its discriminatory and corruption enabling narrative.

Given the complexity of the subject and the range of solutions adopted by the member States to protect whistle-blowers, it believes that the negotiation of a binding instrument, such as a convention, would be time consuming and there would be no certainty as to its outcome. At this stage, the Committee considers it more appropriate to encourage States fully to implement the recommendations which have been adopted by the Committee of Ministers or other bodies such as GRECO. In this connection, it points out that the relevant Council of Europe committees and bodies are ready to respond to any requests for technical assistance from member States.

In common language, our law deciding ministers find:

• defining and protecting whistleblowers to be complex;
• a good convention would take time and probably not be adopted;
• their 2014 recommendations (CMRec), which violate International instruments and standards, should be encouraged;
• they want the CoE to assist member states in implementing the 2014 human rights violating recommendations.

GRECO to market and execute whistleblower violations internationally

GRECO oversees the correct implementation of the CoE legal instruments, including the CMRec.

GRECO has in March 2022 issued a presentation Towards common standards for whistleblower protection in Europe and beyond to the Organization of American States.

In it GRECO advocates on behalf of the CoM to reduce the International whistleblower Standards and definitions. It alleges justification in the EU whistleblower directive.

GRECO claims:

CoE has called all its members (larger Europe – 47 countries) to draw on this example, PACE Resolution 2300(2019)

The PARes is the exact resolution where in point 5 member states are called to recognise any person can be a whistleblower, which the CoM explicitly rejected in favour of its CMRec.

Totally schizophrenic.

the European Committee on Legal Co-operation follows GRECO's example

In June 2022, the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) provided a report to the CoE, the Evaluation Report on Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 of the Committe of Ministers to member states (CDCJ20)

The document is an interesting mix between acknowledging the European Human Rights violations in defining and protecting whistleblowers, and still not letting go of the European mistakes on the other hand.

For instance, it recognises only:

two main issues identified in the 2019 report of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly as requiring further attention with respect to the EU Directive are: > a) protecting legal entities (especially non-governmental organisations) for disclosing information on illegal practices or as “whistle-blowing facilitators” similar to the way in which journalists can protect their sources; and > b) ensuring protections for individuals working in the field of national security, including specific guidance regarding criminal prosecutions for breaches of state secrecy with access to a public interest defence.

The PARes lists 14 main recommendations, of which several have many sub recommendations. As an example, you will notice the CDCJ20 chooses to not refer recommendation 5 demanding any person can be whistleblower.

Idem in its overview of the UNCAC and ABC, CDCJ20 avoids acknowledging the CoE and EU are violating human rights in limiting the internationally recognised definition of whistleblower, reporting person and protections. In fact CDCJ20 justifies CMRec's discriminations, while acknowledging International Instruments demand any person can be a whistleblower entitled to protection:

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) published a Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons in 2015 which contains a number of good examples from around the world, including the work of the Council of Europe, and included a table of evaluation criteria for Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 (see Annex II). The Guide was designed to support the implementation of the provisions of the 2003 United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) which provides for the protection of anyone, including witnesses and their relatives, from retaliation for reporting facts of corruption including limits on revealing their identities. By emphasising “facts concerning offences” UNCAC broadened slightly the scope of information that could be protected. However, because UNCAC relates primarily to corruption offences the emphasis taken at state level is more often focused on witness protection and the actions law enforcement can take rather than administrative protection measures and institutional capacity emphasised by Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 or even in the UNODC Resource Guide. Interestingly, the 2021 OECD anti-bribery recommendation refers to protecting against any retaliation, including in the workplace which further supports the importance of distinguishing between witness and law enforcement protections and whistleblower protection measures more broadly understood.

CDCJ20 aptly fails to acknowledge the UN's repeated and loud stance in the referred Resource Guide on Good Practices in the Protection of Reporting Persons, such as:

the need to provide protection for other reporting persons who would fall neither under the scope of the workplace-related whistleblower protection nor under witness protection. This would include persons who report information that is not sufficiently detailed as to constitute evidence in criminal proceedings, but still related to alleged corruption.

Also in CDCJ20's acknowledgement of the ISO standard, it aptly circumvents the ISO standard of any person can be a whistleblower. Instead, it re-justifies CMRec should govern how organisations and competent authorities handle whistleblowing concerns.

the ISO Guidance complements the principles and requirements of Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 and the EU Directive 2019 that should govern how organisations and competent authorities handle whistleblowing concerns by detailing a comprehensive management system.

The CDCJ20 acknowledges that the European Court of Human Rights argued under article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights that non limiting whistleblowing is in the public's interest

“in a democratic system, omissions of governments must be subject to close scrutiny, not only by the legislative and judicial authorities, but also by the media and public opinion”

And at the same time it vindicates CoM and EU legal instruments discriminating against media and public opinion, against much corruption discovered outside work relations.

It seems the CDCJ20 battles to justify CoM and CoE wrongdoing in the context of explicit international instruments and standards.

Or how the ego of European state ministers gets in the way of doing the right thing, which the parliament and international instruments have been demanding for over a decade.

The CoM and its organs GRECO and CDCJ really laugh at the European public.

Accountability transfers

Let's have a look at the risk of accountability in the context of implementation versus violation of the different instruments. The table below provides a personal appreciation without the nuances set out in this post series:

Why?

Remember the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity (REC) ? It details how the capture of public policies by narrow interests is a vehicle for wrongdoing:

where public decisions over policies are directed away from the public interest towards a special interest, (they) can exacerbate inequalities and undermine democratic values, economic growth and trust in government.

In our leaders, our ministers, capturing public policies and unilaterally enacting laws against the public's demand and international standards, human rights violating liabilities are imposed by the CoM upon CoE member states.

By capturing public policy, our ministers provide our countries the legal tools to allow for persecution of whistleblowers. In so doing our governments, whom are all parties to the UNCAC and ABC, consider their international engagements as a to be violated doormat. The shared solutions for all humanity are to our European leaders vapourware.

It gives our governments the power to create a culture of distrust, denial of protection, and ultimately for people to see and experience the hardship which daring to speak up against wrongdoing, corruption, brings. In Europe, the alleged global front-runner for human rights, and against corruption, politicians engage a culture against transparency and accountability.

Why? What advantage do our national ministers have to impose on us legal instruments that go against their own marketing and the public interest?

Do Pandora's boxes of wrongdoing need to remain uninvestigated?

The next post goes on to examples.

• part 1 { Whistleblowers in Europe: lawmakers reduce opportunities to report wrongdoing }
• part 2 { Whistleblowers in Europe: efforts to keep Pandora's box closed }
• part 3 { Whistleblowers in Europe: how states waltz around Human Rights }

Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

Whistleblower definitions by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Anti-Bribery Convention (ABC) and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and other international institutions such as the International Standards Organisation (ISO) were already discussed.

They all boil down to the definition of a whistleblower being any person who reports wrongdoing in good faith. Protection is mandatory. But what about Europe?

Council of Europe – CoE

CoE Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CRLCC) (ETS No. 173) September 27th 1999

This convention does not go on to define reporting persons or whistleblowers. In so doing it does not create any possibility to discriminate other then its article 22:

Protection of collaborators of justice and witnesses Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to provide effective and appropriate protection for: a) those who report the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 2 to 14 or otherwise co-operate with the investigating or prosecuting authorities; b) witnesses who give testimony concerning these offences.

So anyone reporting or witnessing any of the criminal offences is presumed protected. These offences are superficially defined, leaving room for interpretation. I condense the various provisions:

the promising, offering, giving, receipt by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, for him or her to act or refrain from acting.

In particular when:

public officers, mayors, ministers or judges, including prosecutors and holders of judicial offices

commit acts of:

active or passive bribery, trading in influence, money laundering, account offences

These terms leave room for much interpretation, particularly if one is to consider the European Convention on Human Rights or any other human rights instrument.

It is clear under the CRLCC, anyone can report, and must be protected for reporting or witnessing a vast array of offences.

It is by no means as comprehensive as UNCAC or ABC, but at least it does not limit who is considered a whistleblower or witness.

CoE Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (CRLCC-AP) (ETS No. 191)

It expands the CRLCC by adding definitions for arbitrators and jurors. It is only of interest in so far as under arbitrators is specified any member of the judiciary and by parties appointed mediators.

CoE Civil Law Convention on Corruption (CILCC) (ETS No. 174)

The CILCC does not go on to define reporting persons or whistleblowers.

It does define corruption as:

requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behaviour required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof

It only provides very limited protection in its article 9 for employees:

protection against any unjustified sanction for employees who have reasonable grounds to suspect corruption and who report in good faith their suspicion to responsible persons or authorities

Having said that, its opening article 1 offers some vague protection for victims:

effective remedies for persons who have suffered damage as a result of acts of corruption, to enable them to defend their rights and interests, including the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage

So if the whistleblower is not a victim or employee, there is no protection under the CILCC. It is also clear victims have to be provided the means for them to defend their rights, and can claim compensation.

The question here is whether whistleblowers by the act of whistleblowing do not automatically become victims if they can not provide for their defence and/or suffer hardship. I argue whistleblower are always victims.

Group of States against Corruption – GRECO

The GRECOis the CoE member states corruption watchdog. It reviews states are correctly implementing the CoE conventions and Council of Minister (CoM) legal instruments, and combats corruption within that strict limiting framework.

While the CoE has 46 member states, the GRECO has 50. That is because CoE observing states have also become a full party to GRECO.

While GRECO claims to have “zero tolerance of corruption”, it advocates through its member states reports systematically for reducing the definition of whistleblowers and their protection. Indeed, states are reviewed through by CoM imposed international instruments, which are the source of the reduction in human rights.

European citizens disagree with authorities

CoE Committee of Ministers (CoM)

The CoE Committee of Ministers (CoM) are the government ministers who are the decision-making body of the CoE. You read that right. At the CoE the non parliamentarians decide.

In 2010 a CoM whistleblower recommendation reply acknowledged:

the existing international legal framework that protects whistle-blowers from any form of retaliation, which includes, interalia, the UN Convention Against Corruption, the 1992 ILO Convention No. 158 concerning Termination of Employment, the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law and Civil Law Conventions on Corruption (ETS No. 173 and No. 174) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of expression and information.

Both UNCAC and Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and its own CoE CRLCC for that matter, recognise as whistleblower any person reporting any wrongdoing without ill intent.

The CoM first delayed providing an answer to the public's demand for a broad whistleblower convention:

The Parliamentary Assembly also proposes the drafting of a framework convention (paragraph 2.3) in this field. The Committee of Ministers may come back to this issue once it has taken a decision on the possible elaboration of guidelines.

The result came in 2014 when the CoM adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 (CMRec). The CoM markets the CMRec publicly as “strengthen whistleblower protection laws and European standards”.

It is explicit acknowledgement by the CoM their CMRec are not international standards but European standards.

The non international standard which is set by the CMRec is to exclude many forms of whistleblowing. Such as discriminating against any whistleblowing of information obtained outside the context of one's job.

GRECO has to execute what its decision-making body demands. It doesn't prevent the CoM to then argue GRECO reports say whistleblowing can only be work related. A vicious human rights violating circle ensues of CoM saying GRECO said and GRECO repeating CoM instruments. This vicious circle fuelling human rights violations has been ongoing for a decade.

CoE Parliamentary Assembly's (PACE)

The PACE is the public's representative at the CoE. They are parliamentarians from member states. Ever since its first initiative in 2007 PACE has endeavoured to improve and widen whistleblowing. PACE realised already back then the CoE had a fundamental problem, disrespecting international instruments and standards such as UNCAC and ABC.

The PACE special rapporteur, Sylvain Waserman, presented a motion for a resolution on the subject of whistleblowers on January 23rd 2018. It was co-submitted by 51 PACE members and went through the formal process of reports, amendments, recommendations. It reached the status of resolution on October 1st 2019, and the final text was adopted the same day with a whopping 128 in favour, 0 against and 18 abstentions. Meet the Resolution 2300 (2019): Improving the protection of whistle-blowers all over Europe (PARes)

The voice of the public, the parliamentary assembly, can not be clearer on the need and willingness to improve whistleblowing protection in Europe and beyond.

Because CoE member states are subject to UNCAC and ABC, this adopted resolution is a groundbreaking attempt at brining the CoE member states in line with their international obligations. The resolution recognises there are important problems with the current legal status of whistleblowers in Europe and CoE shortcomings.

The PARes highlights the many protection shortcomings, and importantly imposes that any person can be a whistleblower.

The term whistle-blower must be broadly defined so as to cover any individual or legal entity that reveals or reports, in good faith, a crime or lesser offence, a breach of the law or a threat or harm to the public interest of which they have become aware either directly or indirectly

The PARes also criticises the subsequent EU Whistleblower directive (EWD), and in some way alerts to the problems that lawmakers are creating by enacting it.

European Whistleblower Directive (EWD)

Let's go EU heavyweight: “DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/1937 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law“. If you have not broken your tongue after reading this title, I apologise for calling it the European Whistleblower Directive (EWD).

The EWD takes over the CMRec instead of the PARes, and builds on the former's reduction of whistleblowing possibilities to further reduce possibilities to report wrongdoing:

The Directive is limited to providing for protection within its competencies – i.e., breaches of EU law.

I fail to understand why everyone applauds this discriminating, international law and human rights violating directive, which member states MUST have translated into national law by end 2021. Due to member states not doing so, it got delayed for a year till December 2022, ... and still member states have not all appropriately enacted whistleblower protection laws.

To be continued ...

• part 1 { Whistleblowers in Europe: lawmakers reduce opportunities to report wrongdoing }
• part 2 { Whistleblowers in Europe: efforts to keep Pandora's box closed }
• part 3 { Whistleblowers in Europe: how states waltz around Human Rights }

Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023

Both the Council of Europe and the European Union have a very similar flag and the same anthem. Both use each other's work to create legal instruments. The legislative work of both is supposed to be subsidiary to the OECD and the United Nations.

Groundwork for these had been started before the war. The war catalysed for the post war period willingness to ensure peace, human rights and prosperity.

| – | – | – | | United Nations | 24 October 1945 | is global | | OECD | 16 April 1948 | going global | | Council of Europe | 5 May 1949 | open to non EU parties and observers | | European Union | 1950 ~ 1 November 1993 | expanding within the EU continent |

| – | – | – | | European Court of Justice | 23 July 1952 | CoE parties | EU countries only | | European Court of Human Rights | 21 January 1959 ~ 1 November 1998 | any person against a CoE member state |

On the European continent, the importance, precedence, of legal instruments countries must respect is from highest to subsidiary:

Council of Europe (CoE)

The CoE is an international organisation of 46 member states, which includes the 27 European Union member states. It functions like a membership club endeavouring for human rights.

It enacts laws and has a parliamentary assembly. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is its court.

Member states are subject to the European Convention of Human Rights. They are supposed to become parties to any other CoE treaty as quickly as possible. Some countries (like Switzerland) are hard headed, using the CoE as a doormat to influence laws but not implement them. Even the CoE treaties they are party of (as per published on their federal web site) are violated at will.

However, the CoE explicitly refers its treaties are subject to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), remember?

The Council of Europe Treaty Series groups together all treaties concluded since 1949. Whether termed “agreement”, “convention”, “arrangement”, “charter”, or “code”, these texts are all international treaties in the sense of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The CoE is actually so explicit that:

texts (which) are not treaties in the meaning of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (they) have been removed from the list of treaties

So really, member states have no excuse whatsoever. Once a party to a CoE convention, it takes full precedence over any national law.

The CoE also recognises being subject to the UN system:

All Council of Europe treaties are registered with the Secretariat of the UN within one month of entry into force.

And for rogue member states (like Switzerland) who love to object and read other member states on their shortcomings (through Declarations, Reservations and reports):

Under the regime of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, two competing requirements must be reconciled. On the one hand, it must be ensured that the relevant treaty provisions on reservations and declarations are respected. On the other hand, the depositary is in principle not entitled to decide on the admissibility or the legal effects of reservations and declarations.

And to make the point complete:

Party: Parties to a treaty are the States or the International Organisations, which have consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force (see Article 2 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). Parties to European treaties may be the member States of the Council of Europe, non-member States or the European Community.

Non CoE member states can become observers and/or decide to become party to individual treaties. Both are welcome to take part in the drafting of treaties. You have an easy search tool on:

• CoE member states treaty parties
• Non CoE member states treaty parties

European Union (EU)

The EU is a supranational state-like union to which member states are subject. It functions somewhat like a federal state above 27 countries.

It enacts laws, treaties, declarations, ... and has a parliament. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is its court.

There are a variety of instruments, some of which are automatic to all member states, and others needing to be translated to national law.

In order to hopefully avoid confusion with legislating organs holding similarity in names, herewith the four important ones of concern:

• European Council: the heads of state or government of the European Union Member States. Used to agree on political issues and public policy.
• Council of the European Union = EU Council = Council of Ministers: the cabinet ministers of the European Union Member States. Used to pass laws.
• European Commission: the executive body of the European Union.
• European Parliament: the directly elected by citizens of the European Union.

The European Union is no party to and as such not subject to the VCLT. It has an ongoing internal argument whether it should become a party to the convention or not, and whether its ECJ would always accept it.

Jurisprudence by the ECJ goes both ways, but particularly the other way when a EU legal instrument violates another international instrument.

The difficulty is that EU member states are obliged to submit to EU law. Period. There are sanctions if they do not.

It makes for the nutcase situation whereby the EU may (and does) enact laws which are contradicting UN and/or CoE and/or OECD instruments.

Which would you choose?

Member states find themselves obligated to submit to the EU version, risking sanctions or even exclusion from the EU of they do not. At the same time being party to the UN/CoE/OECD they should act in accordance to these higher ranked international instruments, whom do not have direct sanctions.

UN – no sanctions other then nagging, spanking and discrediting reports OECD – no sanctions other then discrediting reports and threat to be kicked out CoE – no sanctions other then through legal process before the ECHR EU – direct financial and legal sanctions in addition to the ECJ

It strikes me how a lower organ is given higher power and authority.

While in its jurisprudence the ECJ has never condemned against the CoE, OECD or UN when EU law did not say otherwise, it has condemned based on EU law when EU law contradicts other international instruments. It is all in the interpretation of Human Rights…

The next post is exactly about this tension between international instruments, reviewing CoE and EU whistleblower law, and some of the reasons why since the EU Whistleblower directive whistleblowers in Europe are worse off then before.

Tags: #Rights #Whistleblower

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. This blog gets the proverbial pants on!

information provided as is, without prejudice, without any prejudicial recognition, and with reservation of all rights, expressly without recognition of any Swiss competence which remains contested

for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, all information on this blog, such as but not limited to documents and/or audio recordings and/or video recordings and/or pictures mentioned, have been made and/or collected, and published, in the interest of justice and the public at large

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to everything on this blog

the Universal Right to Truth principle applies to everything on this blog

© Copyright 2023