Vincze Erik, New Yorkból, szavának állt és a Hágai Büntetőbíróságra is beadott egy feljelentést Gulyás Gergely, a magyar miniszterelnökséget vezető miniszter ellen, az ún. "vakcinaigazolványok" miatt.
Dear International Criminal Court!
I would like to make a communication against Minister Gergely Gulyás. He is minister of Hungarian Government.
Asked at a government press conference called "Kormányinfo", the minister said that the government has not yet made a decision on vaccination certificates, but mentions European examples here and that the government will make a decision on higher vaccination rates. However, he predicts that quarantine cannot be ordered for vaccinated individuals. He argues that the distinction is not arbitrary and that there is a thousandth difference between the chances of the vaccinated and non-vaccinated. A thousandth difference in my interpretation means that the chance of a vaccinated person getting sick is between 0.01% and 0.99% lower compared to an unvaccinated person. In the video attached below, it goes from 17:57 to 18:45.
The Minister also said that participation in European Football Championship matches can only be done with a vaccination certificate. In the video attached below, it’s between 20:22-21:15 and about 54:25-54:30.
Minister, in my view, has committed a crime against humanity under Article 7 (h) of the ICC Statute.
Justification:
According to Article 7 (h) of the ICC Statute, a crime against humanity: persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
Why is an act in communication considered a comprehensive persecution?
Covid-19 infection is asymptomatic in 80% of cases, and only 20% of those infected will have a confirmed infection. People with a strong immune system can easily become asymptomatic. As they are subject to a fee for issuing a security certificate, I think very few people would use this solution.
Based on this, people are approx. 75% would have to take a vaccine to get a certificate of protection. That's a total of about 6 million people. If about 5 million people can be persuaded to get vaccinated, an unvaccinated minority of about 1 million people will remain.
1 million people approx. One-eighth of Hungary's vaccinable population.
Based on these, it can be concluded that the attack is comprehensive.
The measure concerns a identifiable group. This identifiable group is the community of people who do not request or cannot be vaccinated against covid-19.
The Hungarian government has emphasized on several occasions that vaccination is voluntary, which means that one can decide whether or not to vaccinate.
Definition of the word volunteer: Volunteer, of one's own free will. If something is voluntary, yet there are legal restrictions on those who have not done it, it is all but non-voluntary. Historical examples are that in authoritarian regimes there were also papers, organizations where the matter was officially "voluntarily" carried out. For example, they "voluntarily" joined agricultural cooperatives in the socialist countries, "voluntarily" became members of the Hitlerjugend, "voluntarily" handed over their factories to the state in the socialist countries. It was all, just not volunteering. In some cases, such "voluntary" acts have led to the conviction and conviction of senior executives for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When is a measure considered mandatory?
De jure mandatory: Where the application of a measure is mandatory because it is required by law, a final official decision, a final court decision or customary law. An example of this is when wearing a mask is mandatory because it is required by law; or if quarantine is mandatory because it is required by an authority.
De facto mandatory: If the application of a measure is not required by law, a final official decision, a final court decision or customary law, but the person not implementing the measure suffers a significant infringement. An example of this is when vaccination is not mandatory, but unvaccinated persons e.g. they may not travel freely or exercise their cultural rights to a limited extent. An example of a significant violation is when testing is not mandatory, but individuals who do not participate in testing are required to be quarantined and do not have a negative test certificate, and this certificate is required to reside in public areas.
A de facto mandatory measure is also considered mandatory.
Making vaccination de facto compulsory at sporting events would be detrimental to:
1. Common Article 2 of international human rights instruments
2. Articles 18 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
4. Articles 15 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
for the following reasons:
According to a common Article 2 of international human rights instruments, States Parties shall respect fundamental rights on the basis of all grounds of discrimination, namely race, color, sex, disability, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. without distinction.
Based on this, the Hungarian state has a duty to ensure fundamental rights for all without discrimination.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows States Parties to suspend, to the extent necessary in an emergency, certain rights in an international human rights instrument, provided that this does not violate other rules of international law or international human rights instruments 2. Article. However, there can be no derogation from Articles 6 (right to life), 7 (prohibition of torture, cruel and degrading treatment), 8 (prohibition of slavery), 11 (prohibition of imprisonment of debtors), 15 (prohibition of retroactive effect), 16 (right to legal capacity) and 18 (freedom of conscience and religion).
In addition, where a State avails itself of the application of Article 4, it shall immediately inform the other States Parties through the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the measures which it has derogated from and of the reasons therefor. Further information shall be given in the same way as to the date on which the State shall put an end to such derogations.
Some people may not be vaccinated for health reasons. For example, anaphylactic reaction after previous vaccination, chronic lyme disease, immunodeficiency. If certain rights were to be linked to the administration of the vaccine, people who would not be able to receive the vaccine for health reasons would not be able to enjoy certain rights either, which would be discrimination on the grounds of health.
In addition, we do not know whether a reaction called antibody dependent enhancement develops in people who are vaccinated during an active infection or who have already been asymptomatically infected, or how the vaccine affects people in the long term. Because of this, many people do not want to be vaccinated, which is a decision of conscience.
Specific example:
Vaccination-related adverse reactions reported in the United States between March 2020 and March 2021; all vaccines combined, excluding covid vaccines:
29899 reported cases.
0.58% ended in death,
0.74% life-threatening
2.55% permanent disability
4.27% were hospitalized
6.90% went to the emergency room
20.24% at the GP
7.15% were severe
92.82% were not severe
Covid vaccination-related side effects reported in the United States between March 2020 and March 2021:
44223 reported cases.
4.18% ended in death,
2.84% life-threatening
1.80% permanent disability
9.47% were hospitalized
16.27% went to the emergency room
15.40% at the GP
15.13% were severe
84.87% were not severe
These values are worrying. 1.5 times more side effects were reported with Covid-19 alone than with all other vaccines combined. The rates of fatal and life-threatening side effects are relatively high, at 7.02% combined. Of particular concern is the almost 5% rate of fatal side effects. About 10% needed longer or shorter hospital stays, about 16% of cases went to the emergency room, 15% had probably had fewer side effects than their GP, but fewer people required only GP care because of the serious side effects. About 15% of the side effects were severe.
Anyone can retrieve the data at https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html.
Some numbers may appear low, but significantly more side effects have been reported in the VAERS system with covid vaccines than with other vaccines. Of course, not all cases are uploaded to the VAERS system, but there is nothing to suggest that the management of the VAERS system is being deceived, and the ratios are still telltale. Isn't vaccination as safe as they say?
This raises the issue of discriminating against people on the basis of conscience. Definition of conscience: The often personalized moral consciousness, on the basis of which one judges the moral correctness and morality of one's own actions, feelings and thoughts. I’m sure, given the numbers, quite a few people wouldn’t give themselves the vaccine, and not everyone trusts a vaccine developed at a very fast pace. If the rights of persons who refuse vaccination for reasons of conscience or religion are restricted, this would be discriminatory and would violate Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The vaccination certificate can be obtained in 3 ways. Vaccination, confirmed infection, and antibody seropositivity confirmed in a private laboratory. The use of the third method will, in my opinion, be rare, as the examination and obtaining the certificate is subject to a fee. For persons with few assets, obtaining the document in this way is therefore a property distinction.
The Minister mentioned the obligation to have a vaccination certificate for sporting events. Sporting events are essentially a cultural event as they provide entertainment for spectators, but they have minimal interference in the sport. (eg throwing a ball back on the field if it is off the field)
Legislation supporting the responsibility and punishment of the Minister:
Article 25 of the ICC Statute:
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a
crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its
commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission
Even if the Minister does not personally decide on the matter, he will still contribute to the implementation of the act described above, as he would probably vote in favor of the measure in government meetings. In addition, the Minister will speak at the state press conference with complete confidence and no doubt about the obligation to have a vaccination certificate at sports events.
Article 27 of the ICC Statute:
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular,
official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected
representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under
this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under
national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
This means that Minister Gergely Gulyás has the same responsibilities to the ICC as, for example, a mayor or a military commander. The Minister's legal immunity under Hungarian national law is not valid before the ICC.
Reasons for the ineffectiveness of national procedures:
Gergely Gulyás is the Minister of the Hungarian Government and a representative of the Hungarian Parliament. Under Hungarian law, members of parliament and ministers enjoy general immunity, under which they cannot be held liable for acts committed both during and outside the service without the permission of the parliament. Immunity may be waived by a plenary session of Parliament. The Member of Parliament or the Minister may waive immunity only in misdemeanor proceedings, so criminal proceedings may be instituted against them only with the consent of the Parliament.
In 12 years, approx. 60 requests for waiver of immunity were received. Most of these are private prosecutions for defamation. Immunity has been suspended in about 15 cases so far. This right was suspended only in 1-2 cases in the case of a government party representative, and in no case in the case of a minister. The waiver of a minister's immunity has never been requested in 12 years.
Hungary's political system is currently a dominant party system, there are several parties in the country, but Fidesz has a strong dominance. Since 2010, Fidesz has a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly. The leaders of the branches of power are appointed by the parliament, so Fidesz had the opportunity to form a loyal judiciary. The current Attorney General (Péter Polt), for example, is strongly attached to the governing party and used to be a member of Fidesz.
Most of the proceedings against members of parliament are for corruption. Since the appointment of Péter Polt as Attorney General, the number of criminal prosecutions in cases of political corruption has plummeted; where it did start, they have been discontinued at almost twice the rate since the end of 2010.
The Attorney General has strong instructions over prosecutors. Persons with immunity can only be investigated by the public prosecutor's office (members of parliament and ministers by the Central Investigating Prosecutor's Office), and due to widespread government loyalty to the chief prosecutor, the report would probably be rejected if a complaint were made against the minister.
With regard to the management of the covid-19 epidemic, senior judicial officials agree with the government's measures, which have not been prosecuted either propriu motu (on its own initiative) or upon request. In the case, for the reasons mentioned above, it is almost certain that no criminal proceedings would be instituted against Gergely Gulyás.
On this basis, the ineffectiveness of national procedures can be established.
Conclusion:
Minister Gergely Gulyás mentioned the introduction of additional rights related to vaccination certificates at a government press conference called "Kormányinfo". Although the Minister mentioned that the government would later decide on additional rights to the vaccination certificate, he mentioned that sports events could only be attended with a vaccination certificate.
In my communication, I have shown that making vaccination de facto mandatory for sporting events would offend:
1. Common Article 2 of international human rights instruments
2. Articles 18 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3. Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
4. Articles 15 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
I also explained the reasons for the ineffectiveness of national procedures.
The reason for the grievance is that some people cannot get the vaccine for health reasons, and some people refuse the vaccine for reasons of conscience. As discrimination against people on the basis of their health and conscience is prohibited by international human rights instruments, there is a violation against a certain group.
According to international human rights instruments, the right to culture is a fundamental right. Based on these, it would be a serious violation of human rights and a deprivation of fundamental rights of a definable group if sporting events were linked to a vaccination certificate.
On the basis of these, the crime against humanity under Article 7 (h) of the ICC Statute and the preparation of this act can be established.
Sworn statements
I, Erik Vincze, make the following statements under oath:
1. I call on the International Criminal Court to conduct the appropriate proceedings and bring those responsible to justice.
2. What is described corresponds to reality.
3. I do not have more information than described. Based on these, my personal hearing and the supplement to the report requested from me would not involve additional information, so please omit them.
New York, 18. April 2021
Sincerely, Erik Vincze
(szerk. megj. a beadvány magyar nyelven az alábbi linken hozzáférhető)
Kapcsolódó:
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése