GRANTS PROSPECTUS. Human Rights Court for Social Justice. Non-Profit Missions & Effective Use of Funds. August 2014

Transcription

1 GRANTS PROSPECTUS Human Rights Court for Social Justice Non-Profit Missions & Effective Use of Funds August 2014 When You Have No Rights, Nothing Else Matters Human rights is about much more than isolated war crimes or political prisoners in far-away lands, and is the foundation of more aspects of our daily lives than we are led to believe: Economic rights are also human rights, including the right to practice one s profession, to earn a living, and to benefit from the fruits of one s labour. Civil rights and constitutional rights are also human rights, including the right to own private property, to the establishment and integrity of family, to privacy and security in one s home life and personal affairs, the right not to be persecuted for one s opinions and beliefs, freedom of speech and information, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to real and meaningful access to justice. All other humanitarian causes, including educational needs, medical needs, poverty and many other forms of suffering, are ultimately symptoms of underlying violations of human rights and freedoms. No other charitable causes can be addressed with any real effect or lasting impact, unless and until the deeper level of necessary human rights can be restored and protected. Therefore, the full enforcement of human rights under international law is itself the ultimate humanitarian cause, which is of supreme practical importance, as the essential key to all other charitable causes. 1

2 Mainstream advocacy for human rights has traditionally focused almost exclusively upon isolated small-scale violations in developing countries, thus primarily serving as a distraction to deflect attention away from flagrant and widespread violations by dominant countries. However, local violations in small countries are almost always mere side-effects or byproducts of massive, largescale, and much more serious violations which are routinely committed by even the largest countries. As a result, typically, dominant countries artificially portray themselves as morally superior by vilifying smaller countries for the symptoms of their own violations of destabilizing or corrupting those countries. Meanwhile, while public attention is misdirected by the blame-shifting tactic, those dominant countries continue an aggressive public policy of pervasively abolishing the most fundamental human rights in all countries, even against their own citizens in their own territory. In the modern era, governments and globalist banking interests have relentlessly and increasingly been systematically dismantling all economic, civil and constitutional rights, causing mass violations of human rights worldwide. Covering up this looming humanitarian catastrophe of global totalitarian oppression, persistent propaganda in mainstream media is used to artificially maintain the superficial illusion that we still have rights which have already been quietly revoked or subverted. However, rights are not rights if the government can arbitrarily take them away, precisely when you need them the most to save your life, your family and your liberty. When you have no basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, literally nothing else matters. Without the right to disagree with the government, no abuses of power can ever be opposed. Without the freedom to receive and use funds for lawful purposes without interference, no civil society advocacy or non-profit humanitarian activities can ever be pursued. Without our essential human rights, no other social cause can ever be advanced. Therefore, human rights is truly the ultimate humanitarian cause, which all other charitable causes inevitably depend upon as the essential empowering precondition to any and all other forms of social justice. 2

3 Historic Human Rights Movement of Global Impact The solution to restoring and advancing human rights has already been given to us, by great world leaders of the past, from a time when leaders still represented the interests of the people. The past 70 years of international law has already established codified fundamental human rights and freedoms which are fully binding upon and enforceable against all countries. The various national laws and globalist treaties which increasingly undermine and violate these rights are illegal and invalid as violations of international law. Unfortunately, the majority of international laws, which guarantee diverse human rights, have never actually been enforced by any official body, and have thus remained unused until now. Only international Courts can enforce international law to defend human rights against violations by countries, or by multinational institutions furthering the destructive policies of governments. However, access to justice has been mostly denied, undermined by control through funding: If the UN funds a Court, it becomes limited by restrictions imposed by the few countries which dominate the UN. When countries fund a Court established by treaty, it becomes severely limited to maintain practical impunity for those countries. The only way for a real international Court to provide meaningful access to justice for the people, is to be funded by the people, through grass-roots and private non-profit donations. In the current system, the restrictions of treaty-based courts mostly allow only countries to sue other countries, allow countries to refuse to consent to jurisdiction, and allow countries to limit what types of claims the Court will accept. The very narrow exceptions, which only sometimes allow victims to sue for violations, generally require exhausting all levels of domestic courts, which only serves to bankrupt the victims or deny access to Justice entirely. Fortunately, while the treaty approach is one way to establish an international Court, that is not the only way. International law already provides direct statutory authority for a truly independent Court of Justice, without need for any treaty, thus avoiding the influence of the UN or any country. Ignita Veritas University (IVU) has already obtained a governmental license to operate an official Court of Justice, authorized to independently enforce international law, with full judiciary autonomy. This new judiciary institution is the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ). The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is a historic accomplishment and major advancement in international law, as the next generation in cutting-edge evolution of human rights law, for the following noteworthy, ground-breaking reasons: 3

4 ACIJ is the first human rights Court in history to be based upon statutory authority, firmly rooted in long-established provisions of codified international law; ACIJ is the first international Court to operate entirely from pre-existing international laws which are already binding upon all UN member countries; ACIJ is the first Court which can lawfully assert universal jurisdiction over all countries, without any requirement for recognition nor consent by any country; ACIJ is the first Court positioned to fully utilize international laws which strictly require all countries to honour and implement its binding and enforceable judgments; ACIJ is the first Court of official capacity and licensed authority which is simultaneously free from influence of the UN or any country, making the Court truly free to fully represent the legal human rights and freedoms of all people worldwide; ACIJ is the first Court allowing all individual or private victims of human rights violations, from all countries, to sue violators and governments in all countries, on any and all cases concerning international law; ACIJ is the first international Court of first instance, giving victims access to Justice when intervention and remedies are needed most, not decades later after victims are further devastated by artificial political and economic barriers to Justice. ACIJ is the first international Court in history to have its own official institutional enforcement operations, for the Court to proactively work to achieve real-world enforcement of its judgments, not leaving plaintiffs to battle governments to uphold their judgments. Now, it is up to we the people to fund the first international Court in history to finally truly represent and enforce human rights by the people, and for the people, worldwide. As the first truly international Court with full judiciary autonomy to uphold the rights of all peoples, ACIJ inherently carries massive global impact for social justice. The fact of its very existence alone serves to raise awareness, attract attention, and change outdated paradigms of human rights and international law. Its active operations will further set an example, by leadership, for the legal profession and the judiciary worldwide, thereby raising the standards for Justice itself. The conceptual model of ACIJ serves to educate lawyers, judges and human rights organizations around the world. It teaches and promotes a new and already growing consensus in the legal and judiciary professions, that the most powerful provisions of established international law have never been properly used. This results in an unprecedented leadership role for the ACIJ, carrying ongoing impact for social justice, by showing the world that there is a genuine Rule of Law, with human rights that can be effectively enforced, universally, for all people. IVU has also obtained international licenses as a university educational institution and academic accrediting body. This puts IVU in a powerful position to additionally support human rights through educating judges and lawyers internationally, giving them professional academic tools to effectively apply and administer international law for social justice. 4

5 Therefore, the UN NGO non-profit institution of IVU, as a law center, university, and host organization for the ACIJ human rights Court, is the full embodiment of a major human rights movement, which is ideally positioned to achieve maximal global impact. As such, IVU serves as a centrally integrated focal point, providing a unique and historic opportunity for real-world impact for social justice. For those reasons, it is the sincere belief of our institution that no other target of non-profit fundraising for humanitarian causes has ever been better prepared to accomplish tangible results for the betterment of humanity worldwide. Accordingly, we genuinely believe that there is no possible better use of tax-deductible grants and donations than the most high-priority human rights missions of IVU and the ACIJ Court. Exercise Your Real Power to Take Back Your Rights Modern society has been subjected to the systematic dismantling of all civil and human rights, causing the carpet of freedom to be pulled out from under our feet. The result is none other than the collapse of modern civilization. If this agenda is allowed to continue its growing devastation, undermining all humanitarian values, then it will result in nothing less than literally the end of life as we know it. Historically, soldiers have always been motivated to go to war based upon the sincere belief in preserving our way of life, which the government tells them means our rights and freedoms. Paradoxically, as dominant countries aggressively attack and systematically destroy the founding constitutional principles and civil rights of all countries, which literally define our way of life as the very fabric of society, not a single shot is fired in self-defense. While good soldiers are given guns to actually go to war to defend our way of life (supposedly meaning our rights), we the people barely have enough rights left to merely protest to reclaim our rights from our own governments. Fortunately, there does exist a form of lawful warfare to restore and defend human rights, which is that of legal warfare, by means of the strict enforcement of all existing international law: The primary weapon in the fight for human rights is the Judiciary, in the form of an international Court of Justice exercising universal jurisdiction. The secondary weapon is education, mobilizing university resources to train judges, lawyers and experts in all relevant areas necessary for the full and forceful application of the full weight of the law. If we do not take up this fight, then nothing else will be left that is worth fighting for. The ammunition for these lawful weapons of legal warfare is non-profit grants and donations. As a result, your donations have the power to give real force to human rights under international law. Every donation is a very real shot fired in self-defense, an effective counter-strike against violations of our rights and freedoms, and a significant advance for social justice. 5

6 Never before in the history of philanthropy have donations had the potential to make such dramatic global impact for all of humanity, at such a high level internationally. Established by Founding Grants of Over $3.0 Million USD From , IVU successfully raised a total of $3.0 million USD of assets and funds, as seed capital for developing and establishing effective working infrastructure for international operations, positioning the institution to subsequently launch large-scale charitable and humanitarian projects of global impact for social justice. During the 5 year period of foundation and development, the following assets and proceeds were contributed to IVU as nonprofit grants, as a result of private fundraising efforts through professional networking: A grant of $300,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the European-managed Board of Trustees of the American-based Historical Preservation Society (HPS). Related cooperation resulted in establishing the Royal Institute of History and World Heritage of IVU. A grant of $550,000 USD was contributed to IVU by a Cairo-based international law firm operating throughout the Middle East as well as in Germany and the Netherlands, the International Center for Legal Consultancy and Lawyers. Related cooperation resulted in establishing the Royal Institute of Law and Social Justice of IVU. A grant of $700,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the European-based Holy See of Antioch of the Gnostic Apostolic Church (a religious historical institution from the 1st century as continued from the 15th century). Related cooperation resulted in establishing the International Accreditation Commission of IVU. A grant of $450,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the Office of Special Legal Counsel to the Russian Federation (OSLC-RF), a law firm and governmental independent contractor run by veterans associations. Related cooperation resulted in establishing the Royal Institute of Geopolitics and Human Rights of IVU. Prime real estate valued at over $1.0 million USD, to serve as a land base, was donated to IVU by the Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon (a chivalric historical institution from the 12th century). Strategically located on the banks of the Nile River in Luxor Egypt, this land positions the University divisions of IVU for cooperation with internationally renowned Cairo University and Ain Shams University in Cairo, and facilitates cooperation with the Egyptian government as a leading country in the Non-Aligned Movement consortium of countries. 6

7 This background demonstrates that even during its early formative stages, the humanitarian missions of IVU were capable of inspiring institutional support, attracting speculative preliminary fundraising, generating total resources averaging $600,000 per calendar year, including liquid working budgets averaging $400,000 per year. Effective Use of Funds for Tangible Results Since its inception in 2008, Ignita Veritas University (IVU) has demonstrated a strong track-record of highly effective use of all non-profit funds raised, for successful achievement of targeted results, positioning the institution to accomplish maximum impact for social justice on an international scale. The history of successful establishment of powerful infrastructure for operations establishes a capability for effective implementation of strategic plans, which culminate in across-the-board manifestation of practical results over a 5 year period. This demonstrates that once IVU gains momentum through strategic development, it is capable of delivering tangible work product which carries substantial impact advancing its non-profit missions. The successful implementation of IVU missions during its formative 5 years has accomplished the following milestones, as a solid foundation for its capabilities to achieve major impact for social justice internationally: United Nations Status In March 2013, IVU successfully obtained official United Nations status as a non-governmental organization (NGO) and civil society organization (CSO). This strategically positions the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) as nongovernmental, establishing one of the key qualifications for the Court to assert universal jurisdiction over matters of international law. International Licenses In June 2013, IVU successfully obtained a diverse collection of licenses from multiple Ministries of Egypt, a politically neutral Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) country. These include (1) a license as a Court of Law for international Justice, and (2) a license as a University educational and academic institution. The licenses are international in scope and authority of activities, and are permanent and unconditional, ensuring political independence of the legal powers and authorities. 7

8 Network of International Judges In December 2013, IVU successfully established strategic cooperation with the Foundation of International Justice for Arbitration (Egypt), and Ain Shams University Law Faculty (Egypt), both of which support the judiciary and associations of Judges throughout the Middle East and Africa. This provides access to a network of over 6,600 highly qualified English-speaking international Judges, to support judiciary functions of the Arbitration Court for International Justice (ACIJ). Knowledge Base of Legal Research By April 2014, in cooperation with its network of international Judges, IVU completed research and development of a specialized body of legal and geopolitical research, constituting a proprietary knowledge base of advanced information on practical applications and enforcement of international law. This accomplishment empowered IVU to begin specific preparations for active use of its licensed judiciary powers and authorities in real-world practice. Academic Journal for Human Rights In May 2014, IVU initiated the launch of The Alliance Journal, as an academic journal of its University divisions. The journal serves as an online platform for professional networking and raising public awareness of key human rights issues of international law, as a vehicle for promoting the ACIJ human rights Court. Operating Statutes of the Justice Court In August 2014, in cooperation with its network of international Judges, IVU completed processing and synthesizing decades of international law defining the role of the judiciary in exercising universal jurisdiction. This major legal research project resulted in the development of all statutes and rules of the Court necessary for its full operation as a public institution of Justice. While these are major accomplishments, meeting (and sometimes exceeding) the ultimate endgoals of the most well-established human rights organizations, for IVU this was merely laying the foundations for much greater missions. With another round of funding, IVU will be in a better position than ever to implement further targeted plans of maximal global impact for human rights and freedoms. 8

9 Global Audience & Network for Impact of Social Justice IVU is well positioned and prepared to engage with a global audience of likeminded professionals through social media. Interaction with targeted networks related to professions and special interest groups is a dynamic resource for a general mission of raising public awareness of human rights and social justice issues. It is also a highly productive means of ongoing recruitment of non-profit volunteers, highly qualified professionals for full-time positions, and philanthropic fundraising experts and facilitators. The premier social media networking platform for professionals is LinkedIn, which effectively facilitates the active participation and engagement of users through interest groups. LinkedIn groups serve to attract and motivate people of relevant qualifications to volunteer for non-profit projects and otherwise contribute to various movements. As of 2014, groups related to civil rights, human rights and social justice on LinkedIn constitute an interactive participating audience of over 237,900 professionals. Of that audience, over 47,300 participate in groups for the legal and judiciary professions as related to human rights and social justice. Other major segments are over 81,400 users in groups specifically dedicated to human rights, over 39,600 users in groups focused on geopolitical interests related to human rights, and over 69,600 users in Christian networking groups which emphasize support of human rights. This global audience appears to be the same popular base for several of the most popular alternative media and blogging websites which highlight human rights and social justice topics. Such sites report audiences averaging 210,000 subscribers or followers, who routinely visit the sites and react or respond to new postings. Since subscribers are typically proactive professionals interested in networking for social activism, they tend to subscribe to multiple groups and sites. For this reason, it is generally believed that such sites dedicated to the same topics are followed by the same core audience as the network participating through LinkedIn groups. Active and effective engagement with the core audience is primarily driven by the key resource of content. The most attractive postings, which generate maximum response and active engagement from this audience, are those consisting of articles or information. IVU possesses a wealth of proprietary content, which is highly relevant to the interest group segments of the core audience. Its university departments continually develop academic research in international law, human rights, social justice, and history, all of which are relevant to current events captivating popular news headlines. 9

10 The optimal vehicle for delivering content to the targeted audience groups is a branded blog website. IVU operates an academic journal under its university, The Alliance Journal, as a branded blog. This is the ideal platform for publishing articles and informational content, in a format ideal for posting links to the content on LinkedIn groups. This promotes brand awareness and social consciousness of the activities of IVU as a non-profit NGO institution, while periodically causing the audience to visit the proprietary journal site. Inevitably, the result will be to gradually build up a direct subscriber base for the journal. IVU is also effectively positioned to engage with a global network of qualified legal talent, through relevant associations of the legal profession. In addition to interaction with social media groups of human rights supporters, this network is a more specialized resource for the Court to effectively recruit paralegals, lawyers and Judges, both as part-time volunteers as well as full-time staff. The National Lawyers Guild (United States) has at least 5,000 lawyers and judges throughout the United States, focused on civil rights, human rights, and protection of a free and independent legal profession. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (France) has over 27,000 lawyers and judges in at least 90 countries, concentrating on human rights and independence of the judiciary. The International Union of Lawyers (Russia) has over 30,000 lawyers and judges throughout at least 16 countries of Eastern Europe and Western Europe, dedicated to promoting founding UN principles of international law and upholding independence of the judiciary. The International Bar Association (United Kingdom) has over 50,000 lawyers and judges in more than 170 countries, featuring a Human Rights Institute founded with Nelson Mandela. These strategic cooperative relations give IVU access to an active professional network of over 112,000 lawyers, covering all 193 countries of the United Nations. According to statistics from the International Union of Lawyers, Judges and judiciary officers constitute 13.3% of active membership in professional associations of lawyers. Therefore, of over 47,300 legal professionals participating in social media networks, plus over 112,000 members of professional law associations, IVU has access to at least 21,000 Judges. IVU maintains strategic cooperation with the Foundation for International Justice and Arbitration (Egypt), a network of approximately 10,000 Judges throughout 14 countries of the Middle East, who are officially registered as international Judges, made available on call to Courts of Law of various countries. Among the majority of judges who are also law professors at universities, 55% are foreigners listed as Europeans. Over 66% of the judges are proficient in English language. As a result, IVU has direct access to a specialized network of at least 6,600 Judges who can process cases in English language. Therefore, IVU has full access to combined networks of over 27,600 experienced Judges who can process international law and human rights cases involving evidence and case files in English, as a reliable resource for long-term operation of the ACIJ human rights Court. 10

11 Budgetary Use of Funds and Fundraising Targets All overhead and general operating costs of a Court are merely secondary and incidental to its core functions. The essential function of a Court is to process cases, which in turn depends upon the number of Judges available to investigate and adjudicate cases. For these reasons, IVU calculates the use of non-profit funds for the ACIJ Court in relation to the number of full-time Judges, such that operational budgets are considered on a per Judge basis. Annual Budgets as Operating Costs in Proportion to Judges: Annual $ 76,000 $ 36,000 $ 32,000 $ 36,000 $ 25,000 $ 9,600 $ 4,800 $ 38,000 $ 19,200 $ 276,600 Budgetary Expenses for Operating Costs Salary for full-time work of 1 Judge (including private work facilities) Outsourced law firm support for cases (average billable hours) Administrative support staff and clerks (average hourly stipends) Expert academic and legal research for cases International travel costs with accommodations (expected quarterly) Secure encrypted mobile and internal communications Electronic and office equipment and supplies Enforcement officers for Court orders (average hourly stipends) Enforcement costs filing judgments (average filing fees) Monthly $ 6,333 $ 3,000 $ 2,666 $ 3,000 $ 2,083 $ 800 $ 400 $ 3,166 $ 1,600 $ 23,048 The hiring strategy for Judges and staff is a streamlined simplified relationship, which avoids bureaucracy and minimizes management, while providing strong benefits: For an organization of such global scope, it is not practical to participate in the unique labour and tax regulatory regimes in diverse countries related to employment relationships. All staff for the ACIJ Court are legally positioned as independent contractors, such that each professional receives the necessary portion of working budgets from the non-profit grant funds of the NGO. Each person is responsible for reporting any portion which may be attributable as individual income under tax laws of their local jurisdiction, while the NGO has no such obligation. The equivalent of benefits is provided by simply increasing the budgetary disbursement for each staff member, to cover health care and other heath maintenance costs. Medical leave or vacation time is provided simply by continuing the monthly budgetary disbursements during periods of unavailability, during which volunteer experts would fill in for the staff member under the guidance of other paid staff contractors. Approximately 27% is added to staff budgets as benefits, such that a base of $60,000 for Judges becomes $76,000, a base of $30,000 for enforcement officers becomes $38,000, and a base of $25,000 for staff becomes $32,

12 The average full-time work of 1 presiding Judge necessary to adequately process 1 Court case and issue judgment and orders, is approximately 4 full work weeks of 7 working days, extended by 4 weekends of 2 days of rest, thus requiring a total of 36 calendar days. As a result, during a calendar year, 1 full-time Judge can process and adjudicate a total of 10 cases. Therefore, every $276,000 donated to IVU funds the full-time work of a team of 1 leading Judge accompanied by supporting staff, for 1 calendar year of operations. Accordingly, since an operations team led by 1 Judge can process 10 cases per year, every $27,660 donated to IVU funds the full-time processing of 1 judicial case submitted to the Court. Annual Fundraising Target for Full Operations For comparison, to contrast with the target level of operations and case-load capacity of the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) of IVU, the most prominent international courts have the following statistics: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has 18 Judges with a panel of 6 Judges sitting in the trial chamber on each case, allowing the Court to process 1 case at a time. From 2002 to 2014, the ICC has processed a total of only 8 cases, averaging only 0.66 cases per year. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses a panel of 15 total Judges, sitting in a chamber of 5 Judges on each case, allowing to process 3 cases at a time. From 1946 to 2014, the ICJ has processed a total of only 160 cases, averaging only 2.3 cases every year. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has a panel of 47 Judges, sitting in a chamber of 37 Judges on each case, allowing an average of 10 cases at a time. From 2011 data, the ECHR appears to issue final judgment on approximately 1,100 cases annually. These numbers indicate that each case receives attention for only 3 days (demonstrating a trend of superficially rushing cases with a priority on clearing caseload at the expense of meaningful Justice in each case). For the ACIJ Court, the target operations level is that of 10 full-time Judges, ensuring a caseload capacity of 100 cases per year, each of which would receive full and proper attention for fair and effective judgments with appropriate remedies and meaningful enforcement. This goal requires a target operating budget of $2.766 million USD annually. The ACIJ model is for a chamber of 3 Judges to adjudicate each case. Fortunately, it will be sufficient and effective (during growth stages) for 1 full-time Presiding Judge to work with 2 parttime volunteer Judges on each case. The target goal of 10 full-time Judges would be reliably supported by only 20 additional volunteers from the existing network of over 27,600 qualified Judges available. 12

13 IVU has access to a core audience of at least 237,900 human rights supporters. If every one of those people donated only $11.63 (or if only 10% of them donated $116.30), then the annual budget of $2.766 million could be readily achieved. Such grass-roots funding at this level is generally sustainable on a long-term basis, and is feasible to achieve every year. The initial target level of operations, of 10 full-time Judges processing 100 cases per year, would have a capacity 10 times greater than ICC, 3.3 times greater than ICJ, and equal to that of ECHR. That capacity would support full and proper judicial rulings on 151 times more cases than ICC, 43.5 times more cases than ICJ, and 9.1% of the cases of ECHR (but giving due attention to every case) every year. Endowment Strategy for Perpetual Sustainable Operations During the initial 5 year period of development of IVU and the ACIJ Court, all non-profit funds needed to be spent on the necessary and formidable costs of establishing lawful authorities and infrastructure for judiciary operations. Fortunately, however, at this stage when the institution is already well positioned to launch active operations, most funds do not need to be spent, but rather can be managed to achieve greater permanence and longevity of continual operations. As an international institution serving a public function of meeting a global need for Court of Justice, none of the nonprofit funds can ever be placed at risk by any form of investment. The only truly safe and responsible means of leveraging the power of non-profit donations, is available from various countries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): Certain NAM countries have a standard option of Certificate of Deposit (CD) instruments, with at least 11% annual yield on principal, with principal fully guaranteed by the issuing banks, backed by tangible collateral which the banks are obligated to place with the national central bank. Such countries still have traditional laws which preserve the fundamental doctrine and human right that all funds deposited in a bank must remain the property of the depositors, with full and unlimited liability to all depositors. Yields are paid on a monthly basis, ensuring continual cash-flow without artificially waiting for the end of each calendar year. Through this traditional banking model, still available in some countries whose banking laws fully respect human rights and the Rule of Law, IVU can safely place batches of non-profit funds into CD instruments, to generate perpetual budgets from annual yields, without any risk. Using this endowment fund management strategy, as a result of a 11% annual yield on principal: 13

14 For long-term sustainability planning, 7% of all endowment income is added to the endowment. This provides an offset against inflation to maintain the buying power of residual income, or in the absence of inflation advances the long-term growth of the endowment. The annual operations budget of $2.766 million plus the adjusted 7% supplement results in the long-term permanent sustainability target of $2.9 million. Each endowment batch of $2.9 million would generate the net annual budget (after the 7% margin) of $296,670 in perpetuity, to support a permanent operation of 1 full-time Judge with supporting staff processing 10 cases per year; An endowment level of $29.0 million would generate the net annual budget of $2.96 million in perpetuity, to support a permanent operation of 10 full-time Judges with supporting staff processing 100 cases per year. Endowment level funding, targeting increments of $2.9 million, with the goal of eventually raising a full $29.0 million, would give tremendous additional benefits beyond the fact of funding. This would serve to avoid dependence upon continual grass-roots funding, and thus eliminate the risk of unlawful interference or economic downturns which could potentially undermine annual fundraising efforts. This endowment strategy would thus permanently establish a stable and self-sustainable level of institutional operations, ensuring independence and continuity to reliably meet global needs for Justice. Once an endowment level of funding is achieved, it would transform every grant within the endowment into a continual, self-replicating contribution. At 11% annual yield generated from principal, the institution will have the additional benefit (after the inflationary adjustment) of at least 100% of the original grants over every 10 year period. Budgets from the annual yield could then be fully spent to actively accomplish all non-profit missions of the institution, without ever depleting the principal. 14

15 Unlimited Public Demand for Expansion Statistics for the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) indicate that it generally rejects or refuses over 90% of all cases submitted, and 2011 data places that figure at 97% over recent years. Processing cases at a rate of only 3 days for each whole case file, ECHR judgments dismiss over 60% of all cases without remedy. As a result, a full 98% of all cases are refused or dismissed, with prejudice, such that only a precious 2% of all cases ever receive proper judiciary treatment at all. This reality has caused the UN and EU human rights courts to have an increasingly negative reputation, widely considered by the general public to be merely where human rights cases go to die. These figures indicate that the general public demand for justice in human rights cases, in the European Union (including some of Eastern Europe) alone, is at least 36,600 cases annually. Based upon geographical territory and population, by which a worldwide figure would be at least 3 times higher, this indicates an estimated global demand of over 100,000 cases every year. Accordingly, a maximal level of institutional global operations of the Court would be 10,000 fulltime Judges, requiring an ongoing budget of $2.8 billion USD annually. Since IVU has access to networks of over 27,600 qualified Judges, this global level would be entirely possible to implement, employing only 36% of Judges which ACIJ already has access to. Using the endowment strategy of Certificates of Deposit bearing 10% annual yield, an endowment funding of $28 billion would generate that annual budget of $2.8 billion in perpetuity, with no need for any subsequent grass-roots fundraising. Therefore, even this extreme level of maximal global operations is feasible to implement as a permanent and self-sustainable international institution. (Government grants from countries directly contributing to the Court can achieve this multi-billion level. Also, since a substantial portion of punitive damages benefits the Court, and judgments against violating countries can reach hundreds of millions, the enforcement and collection of judgments would allow the Court itself to raise such a level of endowment funds. However, before countries can directly contribute or enforcement collection is reliable, the Court must be solidly capitalized by basic endowment level funding, empowering it to function effectively to achieve widest recognition and strongest enforceability. In this way, multi-million level endowment funding will make it feasible for the Court to develop its own multi-billion level permanent endowment funding as a major global institution.) This information highlights the key point, that there is virtually no limit to the public demand for access to Justice, and for the proper and meaningful judiciary handling of serious cases of human rights and international law. 15

16 Therefore, even when target fundraising and endowment levels are fully achieved, those same targets can be repeated, successively, without any waste, nor surplus, nor any redundancy. As a result, large-scale grass-roots movements for donations, or major institutional or even governmental endowment grants, have unlimited capacity to make direct impact in the lives of billions of citizens worldwide. Institutional Operations for Enforcement of Judgments The general public, as the people of the nations, widely understand that the mechanisms of Justice must necessarily include real-world capabilities for enforcement, with teeth. The most common-sense measure of whether a Court is real or will be effective, is what means it has and is prepared to use to ensure that Justice is carried out in practice. As was famously stated by the 1st Viscount Gordon Hewart, 7th Lord Chief Justice of England ( ), [It] is of fundamental importance that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of Justice. [1] In the popular perception of people worldwide, the failure or refusal to enforce Court orders and judgments is very much the same as interference with the course of Justice, as Justice is not seen to be done. Thus, every judgment which is not enforced undermines public confidence in both Justice as a principle, and in the Judiciary as an institution. Surprisingly, the prominent international Courts do not have any enforcement functions at all. The official policy of the existing well-known Courts is to limit their activities to issuing judgments, and to leave it to the plaintiffs or victims to seek enforcement. According to a handbook distributed by the European Court, Human Rights judgments are concrete tools of advocacy. States are under an international legal obligation to implement human rights judgments. However, just because States should implement the judgment does not mean they will always do so in real life. A judgment from the Court acknowledges in clear and authoritative terms that a violation has occurred, and gives rise to the legal obligation to make changes. [2]. In this way, victims often have to appeal to the same violating countries to enforce judgments against the government s own violations. All the while, those countries know that the Court has no intention of any further action, giving them no incentive or reason to take corrective action. As a result, relying upon voluntary compliance alone, the average enforcement rate of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments is only 21%. Even the International Criminal Court (ICC), in which trials are held based upon pre-existing political pressure from countries pledging enforcement support, has only a 63% enforcement rate. 16

17 For European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments, there are no direct statistics for successful enforcement, but rather compliance is measured in terms of the number of repetitive cases each year, indicating that a previous judgment in the same type of case was not enforced by the violating country. Thus, dividing the number of repetitive cases by the total number of a category of cases yields a percent figure, generally indicating the percent of judgments which were not enforced. According to 2011 statistics from the Council of Europe, repetitive cases in the ECHR during a 3year period comprised an average of 87% of pending cases, 85% of new cases, and 67% of closed cases [3]. This results in an average of 80% of all cases which were repeat violations arising from the apparent failure of countries to implement prior judgments of that Court. Conversely, this demonstrates an estimated rate of effective enforcement as 20% of all issued judgments. For International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments, there are no direct statistics for countries compliance, but legal scholars have made some estimates based upon studies and analysis of the collective case histories of that Court. A study by former ICJ Judge Oda noted that of 36 cases of unilateral application without prior consent to the Court s jurisdiction, only in 8 cases the defendant countries did not object to compulsory jurisdiction and complied with the judgments [4]. This establishes a compliance rate for effective enforcement of 22%. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued (as of 2014) a total of 27 arrest warrants, of which 17 were arrested and brought to trial, and 10 remained as fugitives. This demonstrates a success rate of 63% for enforcement of arrest warrants for international crimes. The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is unique, in being the first human rights and international Justice Court in history to have inhouse proactive enforcement operations as a core component of its institutional infrastructure. According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handbook, NGOs are in a position to put pressure on government authorities that may be unwilling to implement. NGOs can use judgments to support lobbying or advocacy activities. [5]. For this reason, ACIJ is established as an autonomous subdivision of a United Nations NGO host institution, Ignita Veritas University. The host NGO operates an international law center with licensed law firm authorities for advocacy, with think tank functions for promoting public policy, both backed by university faculty resources. This NGO status thereby empowers ACIJ with practical support for real-world enforcement of its judgments. The universal practice of domestic Courts for effective enforcement of judgments primarily involves (1) monitoring compliance, (2) follow-up with penalty orders for non-compliance, and (3) cooperation with other agencies, both domestic and foreign, to enforce judgments. While this basic strategy may seem easier or more intuitive for a domestic Court which is inherently connected to other domestic agencies, the same enforcement mechanism is just as viable and practical for an international Court to implement in its own multinational context. 17

18 The only reason why the previous Courts of the UN system do not have any enforcement operations, is because of the limitations of the treaty-based system, which is inherently flawed: Meaningful enforcement with teeth requires issuing punitive Court Orders for civil violations of contempt of court and criminal violations of obstruction of justice, against any and all country officials and agencies who willfully refuse or negligently fail to enforce binding Court judgments. No treaty-based Court can do so, as that would risk countries withdrawing from the treaty, thus terminating their funding contributions to the Court, and preventing the Court from exercising its treaty-based jurisdiction over countries which are the worst violators. The enforceability of judgments of the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is directly provided by statutory authority of international law. These are not mere voluntary treaties, and countries cannot simply opt out of them. Rather, they are United Nations conventions, duly enacted by the UN General Assembly, which are fully binding upon all countries. Those pre-existing international laws already provide for absolute Judiciary authority of the Court, directly empowering it to take diverse and strong measures to ensure the full enforcement of its judgments internationally. ACIJ enforcement capabilities include: 1. Chamber of Compliance Judges This in-house department is dedicated to enforcement and collection of ACIJ Court Orders and judgment awards. Compliance Judges are special officers of the Court with full judiciary authority and immunities, who monitor implementation of judgments by domestic authorities, overseeing compliance. The Chamber s operations include routinely serving government officials with Court Orders for enforcement, registering judgments domestically, and filing liens and credit reports in all jurisdictions related to a violating person or entity. Compliance Judges ensure that all instances of non-compliance are referred to the Presiding Judges to issue corrective Court Orders. 2. Punitive Orders for Contempt of Court International law gives statutory authority for the Judiciary to impose civil liability for contempt of court, and criminal liability for obstruction of justice, against all country officials and agencies who fail or refuse to enforce judgments. Such Orders must be issued aggressively, at the first sign of any non-compliance, and require follow-through to enforce those Orders at higher levels or through foreign countries. Contempt Orders must be meaningfully punitive, involving tens of millions in fines for each and every instance, and including imprisonment sentences for violating officials whenever possible. 18

19 3. Critical Mass of Accumulating Liabilities A government agency which disregards a valid Court Order is also likely to ignore a contempt judgment. However, the Court serving notice on each higher agency up the chain of command triggers new obligations to enforce. Each additional agency risks liabilities for its own violations of non-compliance, and can also be held legally liable for the accumulating penalties incurred by lower agencies. This results in a snowball effect. At some point, this rapidly inflating price tag for non-compliance must inevitably reach an unacceptable level of economic, political, civil and criminal liability for the government itself. By this mechanism, liabilities reaching a sufficient level of critical mass will force compliance. 4. Leveraging International Alliances Once liabilities for non-enforcement quickly reach the national level, the government of the noncompliant country itself becomes a violator. International law imposes a strict obligation of all countries to fully enforce international laws and judgments of the international Court. The ongoing snowball effect thus becomes a roaming threat of liability to each subsequent country which fails to enforce the punitive Court Orders against the first violating country. The Ministry of Justice of any country can enforce Court judgments against a violating country by seizing its Embassy bank accounts in the host country, which are necessary for Embassy operations. Foreign countries can also execute arrest warrants for any violators appearing within their sovereign territory. Only one single friendly country is needed to begin real enforcement. Many countries, which are often targeted by propaganda of false accusations of alleged human rights violations for isolated events, are eager to enforce Justice for the systemic and large-scale violations by dominant countries. Such countries are also determined to end decades of increasing abuses and circumvention the Rule of Law, as violations of major international laws which have never even been used by any international Court until now. Those countries are unified as a majority 71% of all UN member states, called the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The social justice policies of NAM are also shared by the powerful BRICS alliance of major world powers, which has the economic and political muscle to defend the NAM member-states against any political retaliation for enforcing international law against dominant violating countries. The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) Chamber of Compliance Judges only needs to concentrate on the relatively centralized intergovernmental channels of the NAM and BRICS structures. The broader alliance of affiliated countries through this network enables the Court to coordinate meaningful enforcement measures with a full 80% of countries worldwide. 5. Economic Sanctions by Lien & Credit Filings All jurisdictions have systems for creditors to file liens against property and assets. When a Court of Law issues a binding judgment award for compensatory and punitive damages, the Court itself legally becomes a creditor, allowing the Court to file liens against violators, whether they are individuals as private persons or public officials, or legal entities including government agencies. While the Court has statutory authority to directly order seizure of property and assets, filing registered liens serves as a backup plan, providing an additional mechanism which triggers obligations of domestic authorities to help seize assets to satisfy the liens. 19

20 The filing of liens in domestic jurisdictions is more routine, and thus less political, making the practice an effective alternative to bypass resistance to implementing enforcement measures. Liens avoid the need for subjective decision-making by authorities. Indeed, liens which are filed cannot be rejected nor removed, unless the domestic authority can prove that the liens do not have a legal basis. Since the ACIJ Court has a solid legal package proving its Judiciary authorities, all liens filed by Compliance Judges of the Court cannot be challenged, and effectively trigger all related enforcement consequences. Liens are further supported by the related filing of credit claims to Credit Reporting agencies, causing the liens to be entered into the official credit records of violating individuals or agencies. This combination is a highly effective and powerful method of economic sanctions, causing a defacto blockade of all loans and credit transactions, and interfering with even receiving governmental budgets or grants of a violating entity. The filings and reporting give potential partners, creditors or employers worldwide legal notice that the violator has a registered conviction or judgment by a Court of Law, which has priority on all income and assets associated with the violating person or entity. 6. Fast-Track Enforcement by UN Conventions In addition to serving as a Court of Justice, the ACIJ is also positioned and licensed as an Arbitration Court. In many cases, individuals and legal entities as defendants can be subject to additional arbitration jurisdiction by proprietary methods applying contract law principles of legal notice triggering indirect acceptance. In most cases, countries are subject to additional arbitration jurisdiction as members to contractual provisions of UN conventions which give statutory authority to the Court. As a result, many judgments of the Court will have dual binding effect as an arbitration award, giving supplemental enforcement capabilities. International law provides for special fast track enforcement of arbitration award judgments, under both the UN Geneva Convention on Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927, and the UN New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of This framework establishes priority cross-border enforcement of binding arbitration awards, making the judgments binding upon all domestic Courts of Law in all countries. It requires Courts to automatically adopt arbitration judgments for immediate enforcement and collection, without any further hearing (bypassing the review normally used for foreign judgments ). 7. UN NGO Advocacy for Enforcement Ignita Veritas University (IVU), as a United Nations NGO institution, is in a strong position for advocacy in support of enforcing judgments of the Court. Although IVU is the host institution providing infrastructure to the Court, ACIJ is autonomous, and has its own independent Charter and statutory authority as a Judiciary body. As a result, IVU has greater flexibility to advocate for enforcement, making public campaigns and more aggressive statements which the Court would not want to issue as official statements. This empowers the NGO to pursue strong public efforts, without any political implications for the Court itself, maintaining necessary Judiciary independence and neutrality for the Court. As a United Nations NGO, IVU is authorized to accredit its representatives to UN conferences and events as delegates, for active participation in official channels of diplomatic affairs and international movements of governments and non-profit organizations worldwide. 20

21 [1] Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart, R v. Sussex Justices: Ex Parte McCarthy, All ER Rep 233 (1923),1 KB 256 (1924), ruling on the necessary recusal of Judges for the mere appearance of bias. [2] Basak Cali & Nicola Bruch, Monitoring the Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: A Handbook for Non-Governmental Organizations, May 2011, pp.5-6. [3] Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, April 2012, pp [4] Judge Shigeru Oda, The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A Myth?, 49 Int l & Comp LQ, 2000, p.251, at pp [5] Basak Cali & Nicola Bruch, Monitoring the Implementation of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: A Handbook for Non-Governmental Organizations, May 2011, pp.5-6. Official Certification of Public Grants Prospectus The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is a licensed Court of Law, empowered with universal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law, under UN Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 10, 28), UN Remedy for Human Rights (Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14), and UN Right to Protect Human Rights (Articles 1, 3, 5, ), UN Justice for Abuse of Power (Articles 5, 7), and UN Independence of Judiciary (Articles 3, 9.4). As a UN NGO institution empowered to perform judiciary functions, its official powers and authorities include United Nations status under UN Privileges and Immunities as advisor and technical expert (Sections 16, 22) and UN Associated Personnel (Article 1(b)iii), with mandate to issue official documents (Article 3.2). Based upon official factual investigation and relevant legal analysis, the Arbitration Court of International Justice hereby certifies and issues the present official document, upon which all sponsors, donors grant sources and third-parties may rely. Endorsed and Ratified by Official Seal Chancellor of Chamber of Instruction Judges Human Rights Court Division Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) 21