If the International Criminal Court refuses to investigate or prosecute the legal case that can defend the Amazon Rainforest and its people - from hundreds of industrial developments, that are due to contaminate this ecosystem - then the people and the rainforest are being sentenced to a slow genocidal extermination - determined by the courts inaction.
There is no other judicial power that can stop the Chinese, Canadian and Italian Interests intent on destroying the rainforest and its people, for short term profit with the faciliation of the Ecuadorian President. It is entirely at the courts discretion to advance a prosecution but currently, without justification, they are deflecting this responsibility and refusing the world's only power to defend the rainforest and its people.
A public investigation and prosecution to provide the indigenous population and the rainforest with a final chance of protection from widespread, large-scale and severe industrial destruction, is essential.
No few men should have the power to destroy the lungs of the world and the ecosystem essential for ecological balance, without international accountability nor should they avoid the penalties ready for those who commit the world's most serious crime, which is surely : The destruction of the ecosystems essential for human survival.
In March 2016, the International Criminal Court accepted the argument for registration and review.
Celebrities and Citizens gave the Victory Amazon hand signal in photographs to show their support for the court investigating the crime of environmental destruction that would hold politicans, developers and investors criminally liable for their attempt and intent to inflict conditions of life upon the people that will bring about their physical destruction by poisoning their water, air and soils, in addition to destroying the rainforest lungs of the world. To support on facebook, click here...
On December 22nd 2016, the court's prosecutor refused responsibility
to legally defend the rainforest from industrial devastation... and if this is the case, then only the Nature Nations initiative currently fought to be processed by the United Nations
The court has been asked to justify their legal basis for refusing this responsibility to protect an ecosystem that sustains life for the world. To prosecute this crime or attempt to argue the criminality of such destruction, is entirely at the discretion of the court. They have already acknowledged that the have the power to prosecute the crime of Environmental Destruction; therefore the crime of destroying the Ecuadorian Rainforest, should become a priority of the court.
The latest letter to the International Criminal Court:
To The Office of the Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
Our Reference: OTP-CR-65/16/001
Friday, 23 December 2016
Thank you for your communication.
The destruction of the rain-forest ecosystem, should be considered one of the world’s most serious crimes and of an extremely high level of international concern.
You have the right to exercise jurisdiction when the national judicial system is unwilling or unable to investigation and prosecute, as is the case with the Ecuadorian Judicial system proving itself to be systematically corrupt in favor of the government's economic agenda. The Inter-American human rights court is rumored to submit the same benefit to Correa. Therefore, is it not important that the victims of the crime can understand the legal justification of your decision not to exercise your right to jurisdiction over the case, that provides the only existing international legal power to protect their lives. And does the world not deserve to see a justification for your refusal to protect this ecosystem that is imperative to the life of all on earth?
The definitions of the crimes you mention that you exercise jurisdiction over, meet the conduct of the crime described where Genocide Article 6 (c), is where the industrial exploitation of the rain-forest is deliberately inflicting on the indigenous group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and Crimes Against Humanity Article 1 (b) and Article 2 (b) defines that ‘Extermination’ also includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population.
The contamination of the rain-forest by industrial extraction which poisons the indigenous water, air and soils, is inflicting such conditions of life upon the population that will bring about their physical destruction by disease and premature death. Such destruction can be ‘calculated’ in advance and as such, the court has the unique authority to PREVENT the crime based on those alleged criminal liable, demonstrate the intent and attempt to commit the conduct of the crime, which according to Article 25, includes those that order, solicit or induce the commission of such a crime attempted; facilitate the commission of the crime by aiding, abetting or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission; or in any other way contributing to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose.
What is crucial for the court to acknowledge is that the basis from which the Rome Statute arose, was the 1948 PREVENTION of Genocide legislation, which allowed for the court to PREVENT the deliberate infliction of conditions of life upon the national group that would bring about their physical destruction. This power to protect in advance of the devastation is perhaps the single greatest value that the International Criminal Court offers humanity, and it is within your power to apply this legislation to the ‘Unforeseen Circumstance’ of industrial genocide, ethnocide, ecocide and extermination, which you have the flexibility to do under the conditions of the Vienna Convention. As such, your choice not to investigate nor attempt to argue this case to trial, for the benefit of protecting the life and environment of the Shuar, is entirely at your discretion. Given this case is also about the industrial environmental destruction that is responsible for threatening the global population's ability to survive, it is surely imperative that you argue a case like this to trial. If in a public court, the world’s victims can visibly see how the argument to protect their lives can be lost, then this might be vaguely acceptable, but for an unjustified decision made behind closed doors, to leave the Shuar population to its inevitable devastation, at the hands of the industrial extermination you dismiss as beyond the reach of your entirely discretionary jurisdiction, is not the standard of transparency that one would expect from the world’s highest judicial authority.
When you sit on the only legal authority to protect a major ecosystem like the rain-forest that is necessary for the survival of all and you choose not to investigate or prosecute the case as the one or more persons within the population is intimidated, tortured, murdered; their land militarized and their leaders now illegally arrested along the way to the poisoning of their life system; then are you not also sentencing the world to the ramifications of a dead rain-forest? I question your authority to do so, without explicit justification for your decision not to investigate or prosecute as an entire population and life system is persecuted.
Under Article 30, the decision makers have awareness of the harm they will cause within the ordinary course events. Furthermore in the inevitable situation of an industrial spill of toxic chemicals or reasourses, the crime of Article 7(d) forcible transfer of population, is a calculated crime that will occur within the ordinary course of events. Therefore, the crime is not necessary to be committed maliciously against the population, where the inevitable outcome of the perpetrator's conduct is the devastation of the people and ecosystem, regardless of weather ‘to destroy’ is not a primary objective.
The statute does not confirm the speed at which the genocide or extermination should occur and as such, the slow insidious, industrial contamination that will and has in many similar instances, brought about the devastating illnesses that have shattered the health, well-being, culture and ability to retain the way of life within indigenous communities and subsequently forced their displacement, should be calculated in terms of its outcome over time, without the necessity of immediacy. To ‘bring about’ allows the timing of destruction to occur at whatever pace that it will occur within the ordinary course of events. As such the outcome of the crime can be calculated to be Genocide and Extermination, especially given that the explicit definition of these crimes, match the conduct of the crime.
Already, in accordance with Crimes Against Humanity Article 7(a) murders of three Shuar indigenous leaders have been inflicted to protect or advance the industrial exploitation of their rain-forest land. Now in accordance with Article 7.1(e), the Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law is occurring with the violent arrests, prosecutions and imprisonment of multiple Shuar leaders who have led an essential resistance to the devastation of this ecosystem, which puts the world in debt to them. Additionally, we now see military raids on the homes of peasants and indigenous living in the jungle based on the rumors of guns which don’t exist, armored tanks lining the streets to intimidate the people and potentially, if intended for use on the people, they are poised for further direct murders of the indigenous population who occupy all rights to this land.
On this point, i ask the courts urgent attention to the persecution of Wachapa Atsasu jimpikit Agustin; Vargas Santi Marlon Richard; Katan Yakuam Federico Kashinjint; Pujupat Yanchak Jose Vicente who are being charged with delinquency for leading the Shuar indigenous nation of people to resist the deliberate poisoning of their people and ecosystem. Wachapa is already incarcerated and suffering violent abuse at the hands of the state, it is unknown to me in the last 24 hours, if this is now the same fate of the others, since our conversations yesterday. These leaders represent the respect attributed to the entire indigenous population of Ecuador and as such, i would caution that the international authority to defend their integrity would be an essential sign of respect to a population who sit with the power to make the jungle a hospitable or defensive environment in the future.
Furthermore, the psychological and cultural crime occurring whereby the indigenous people must live under constant military occupation and intimidation, is directly relevant to your Rome Statute Preamble whereby it is proposed we must be conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time. It is certain that the crime of industrial destruction bears so strongly on the psyche of the indigenous people, who are forced to live on daily basis knowing that the water they drink, the soil that grows their food and the air they breathe, is increasingly full of toxic chemicals which will bring about their physical destruction, is a psychological physical destruction in its own right. Yet, my concern remains that they will begin to turn their status as a victim, into an empowered and physical fight to regain control of their territory and they will attempt this boldly against the state of the art military weapons which are currently presented as a threat to their life. We sit currently at a turning point between peace and violence.
In accordance with the Extermination Elements relevant to the crime - 1. The perpetrator has killed one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population. 2. The conduct constituted is taking part as a slowly inflicted mass killing of members of a civilian population, by poisoning them to death with industrial contamination over time, 3. The conduct is committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population as all the population who live in the area affected will become sick from the contamination and 4. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, which will occur within the ordinary course of events. The Genocide elements are self explanatory.
The state of Ecuador has accepted the jurisdiction of the crime committed when they ratified the statute into law and entered it into force 1 July 2002 and under Article 12, the Chinese decision makers, including President Xi Jinping, are committing the crime within the jurisdiction of a state signatory and as such, they are currently criminally liable for the crime. And even if the state of Ecuador withdraws from the statute, they are bound to the terms of the statute and any prosecutions launched while they are members. Might I suggest that in order to protect the rain-forest of Ecuador from certain industrial devastation, the use of this statute now to achieve this value of protecting an ecosystem of international concern, could be timely and the risk of withdrawal of limited importance in comparison. Might i also suggest that you propose to the United Nations that only states who remain a signatory to the Rome Statute should be afforded any future vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations, as if they cannot be held accountable for the world’s five worst crimes, then perhaps they are without right to sovereignty.
I have also suggested in each of my arguments registered by the court, that in accordance with Article 9.2, the ability to propose an amendment to the Elements of the Crime text that would enable the rain-forest ecosystem direct protection as a national group in its own right, without need for human causality. This would enable the world’s only existing legislative power to directly protect a major ecosystem of global concern. You, the Prosecutor, have the individual power to propose this amendment to the General Assembly for a 2/3rd majority vote that would realize world class protection for ecosystems against widespread, severe and large scale industrial destruction. I feel that you have a responsibility to do so, as we face large scale industrial annihilation around the world, this would be perhaps the only available legislative power that offers a chance for protection against climate change.
As per Article 27, the criminal accountability is irrelevant of official capacity and Article 33, does not relieve the persons accused of personal responsibility for the crime when committed pursuant to an order of a Government. Therefore regardless of any positions of state authority, those who proceed with the crime are personally criminally liable for their destruction of the rain-forest ecosystem and its people, for up to 30 years to life imprisonment and full financial forfeiture, which is a small price to pay for the crime of destroying the planet.
I note that in accordance with Article 25.f, if those alleged criminally liable voluntarily withdrawal and completely abandon the conduct of the crime, then they will not longer be criminally liable. Such encouragement by the court, to direct such decision makers toward their legal and sustainable alternatives to produce elements like copper and gain energy, could be one of the world’s most valuable provocations. The are both entirely capable of changing their mind and ending this crime voluntarily.
I note also, that in accordance with the #NatureNations Declaration of Independence recently signed by all the leaders of all eleven indigenous nationalities of Ecuador, and submitted to Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon under Rule 134 of the rules of the United Nations General Assembly, which then REQUIRES the Secretary General to distribute this request for independence and membership to the all the nations of the world under Rule 135; The legal authority of the Chinese and Ecuadorian administrators to exploit this land, which occurs in direct contradiction to their administrative responsibility to “safeguard and guarantee the inalienable rights of the indigenous peoples of the territories to their natural resources, including land, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources,requesting the administering Powers to take all necessary steps to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories" prior to the immediate steps which need to be advanced to return all territories, which have not yet attained independence, to independence, by transferring all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV), titled the Declaration on the Granting of Independence signed on 14 December 1960. In addition to meeting the requirements of a nation state in accordance with the Montevideo convention, the indigenous now await the expedited process that could return their rights to govern their land protected from industrial destruction in accordance with the principles of the Antarctica agreement.
This new submission with regards to your case reference OTP-CR-65/16/001, urges you to reconsider your careful re-examination of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court so that the many serious allegations within this submission are no longer deemed to be beyond the discretionary reach of the institution that the world relies upon to wield the only existing power to protect the ecosystems that sustain life for all that lives on earth. For if you fail to protect that which provides life, then we will find there is little point to the court.