Finland requests that the International Criminal Court investigate its government for exceptionally large-scale and systematic crimes against humanity

Excerpt

To the International Criminal Court on 30 April 2021

SUBJECT: request for investigation

The signatories request the International Criminal Court to examine the following case and to take the necessary legal action. In our opinion, the Finnish Government and various other parties operating under its auspices and with the help of it, hereinafter referred to as the parties, have in the context of measures and decisions on the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 for exceptionally large-scale and systematic crimes against humanity and key elements of Articles 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 3, 5, 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Against the freedoms referred to in Articles 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 17.

Persons subject to the request for an inquiry:

Prime Minister Sanna Marin, other competent government ministers and preparatory officials (Government); THL management: Mika Salminen, Markku Tervahauta, Anne Hyvärinen. . Other relevant regional authorities that have introduced and ordered restrictive and restrictive measures, such as competent officials and rapporteurs of regional government agencies, communicable disease physicians who have made quarantine decisions, listed below, but not limited to:

Regional government agencies: Kristiina Poikajärvi, Mikko Valkonen, Anne Hiiri, Laura Nikunen, Merja Ekqvist, Emma-Lotta Kinnunen, Soile Lahti, Tiina Reijonen, Sami Remes, Ulla Ahonen, Tarkiainen Tuula, Rautio Taina, Kuronen Marja, Ruuska Matti, Sari Kempp Post, Leena Räsänen, Kaisa Ainasoja, Tapio Kekki, Heikki Mäki, Tuomo Ollula, Mikael Luukanen, Maria Raitakari, Katja Paakkola, Heikki Mäki, Pepe Uskelin, Jutta Peltoniemi, Leena Laajala, Laura Blåfield, Pasi Maria Siurua, Terttu Savolainen and Pasi Hirvikoski.

Procedure and decisions concerned by the complaint

The action concerns measures taken by the highest institutions of the Finnish state, including the government of the country, which have caused and will continue to have unprecedented consequences for public health and the economy, as well as large-scale violations of the fundamental rights of private citizens. The country's government has decided and implemented the bans and regulations listed above, which have severely restricted citizens' fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and the right to conduct a business. These measures have been both ineffective and misdirected in the light of scientific knowledge and completely excessive in relation to the health threat they are intended to address. At the same time from several po. the measures can reasonably be expected to cause significantly more harm than good to public health. Such a manifestly ineffective and at the same time unhealthy decision concerns in particular the use of a face mask, which has been made compulsory in many means of transport in the workplace, in addition to the general recommendation for the use of masks maintained by highly manipulative propaganda. This call for continuous use of the mask has been made contrary to well-established scientific knowledge about the detrimental effects of long-term use of the face mask and the disturbances in the brain development of young children. Similarly, the country's top government agencies, together with the authorities listed above, have put very strong pressure on the public to take experimental vaccinations against the covid-19 virus. In addition to an intimidating campaign against statistical information that is inappropriate and accumulated, the so-called the preparation of a vaccination passport project, which would result in those who refuse vaccination being deprived of a number of services in their home country and would face significant difficulties in exercising their right to free movement. Here, too, the pressure campaign has been the result of a large-scale, one-sided and false propaganda campaign, which has, among other things, almost completely silenced the use of an antibody test or other coronavirus infection certificate instead of a vaccination certificate. (1)

The above and numerous other measures relating to the same coronavirus epidemic situation can reasonably be considered to be of a planned nature and deliberate in relation to their consequences, as well as, objectively speaking, arbitrary, unfounded and contrary to well-known scientific knowledge. Because po. the highest possible information and scientific knowledge have been available to the supreme state decision-making bodies and as they are subject to the obligation under Chapter 6, Section 31 of the Administrative Code (6.6.2003 / 434) to fully resolve the matter before making a decision, the signatories consider that harmful and unlawful conduct involves at least mainly criminal intent - in principle dolus determinatus, but at least dolus directus. Decision-makers must consider that they have either expressly sought the adverse consequences described above or, at the very least, have been aware of the harmful and unlawful consequences of their decisions.

This request for an inquiry contains prima facie evidence of the enormous and partly irreversible damage referred to above caused by the actions allegedly “lawful, effective and necessary” in March 2020 to the mental, physical and economic well-being of the people. These illegal activities must be stopped immediately and those who decide on them must be held criminally liable. The evidence is requested to be supplemented on the basis of new material and information gathered during the proceedings.

In Finland, the restrictive measures imposed on the people are mainly based on the incorrect application of the Infectious Diseases Act (21.12.2016 / 1227) and the Emergency Preparedness Act (29.12.2011 / 1552) in force. The Finnish government has made unfounded recommendations and “guidelines” that are badly exaggerated in terms of the viral epidemic, the practical implementation of which has taken place on the basis of regulations issued by THL and regional authorities. The “Corona Epidemic” does not meet the criteria of the Communicable Diseases Act for general danger, the Emergency Preparedness Act criteria for exceptional circumstances or the requirement for a serious infection required by the Communicable Diseases Decree (9.3.2017 / 146, 69/2020). Established and globally comprehensive statistics show that coronavirus infection can pose a risk of serious illness and death in practice only to the oldest age groups, and that serious illnesses, such as diabetes or hypertension, are almost always present in severely ill individuals. Globally, the proportion of seriously ill people is less than half a percent of all those infected, including the risk groups referred to above. In the case of Finland, it can also be stated with certainty that the viral epidemic has not increased mortality in any part of the population. In this respect, it is clear that corona viral infection cannot meet the criteria of general danger mentioned above.

cont…

https://www.ossitiihonen.com/2021/05/02/investigation-request-concerning-government-of-finland-etc-into-international-criminal-court/

https://www.ossitiihonen.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ICCEnglish_Finland300421.pdf

>>77945

cont…

Nuremberg ten standards in experiments on human subjects

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448, 7 December 1996.

CIRP Introduction

The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a new code that is now accepted worldwide.

This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behavior for the post World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.

This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.

This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.

The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended into general codes of medical ethics.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

1. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

1. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

1. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

1. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

1. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

1. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

1. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

1. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

1. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

For more information see Nuremberg Doctor's Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/