sábado, 29 de abril de 2017


Case 24/2017: Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ)

On April 19, 2017, an Act of International Repudiation was made regarding a letter signed by Mr. Perez Esquivel entitled Solidarity with Venezuela against the OAS Coup and Intervention. In the context of our recent case against Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), which was sentenced for Violation of the Democratic Constitutional State of Law and Violation of International Human Rights Law, the statement of support for the Venezuelan government is scandalous. In addition, after issuing the Judgment, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has perceived that the Venezuelan people have begun to peacefully march in protest of the lack of democratic quality of the country, before which the government of President Maduro has responded with violent repression which resulted in several people dead. This kind of episode is not new, because few years ago Maduro's government carried out a tremendous repression, killing more than forty protesters, which obviously has remained totally unpunished. Faced with a government that is producing a political, economic and cultural disaster, it is unfortunate that Mr. Perez Esquivel (Nobel Peace Prize laureate) is an ideological accomplice of this situation by providing support and solidarity to a government that systematically and widespreadly violates human rights, ignoring the democratic will of the Venezuelan people. This situation is silently supported by the Vatican, which has interfered in the internal affairs of other State trying to sustain a regime that is increasingly becoming more tyrannical, authoritarian and undemocratic. The fact that Mr. Perez Esquivel's Communiqué highlights the Venezuelan government's advances in education, housing, health and labor is quite derisory and regrettable, because Venezuela is a country that is in a deep humanitarian crisis caused by government policies, reason by which it recently requested humanitarian aid to the UN. Perez Esquivel's Communiqué deforms reality in an unacceptable way, because beyond the fact that there is freedom of expression, his words have an essentially negationist tinge. Faced with an unfair and illegitimate government, it should be remembered the fact that democratic systems are not dictatorships of majorities, and that winning elections is not to provide a blank check for politicians to do what they want without accountability for their actions. Governments must respect national Constitutions and International Human Rights Treaties, and when this is not complied, one is faced with unjust and illegitimate governments that violate the Constitutional State of Law and the International Law. Therefore, Perez Esquivel's words in support of President Maduro are irrational and irresponsible, betraying any kind of humanitarian legacy that the Nobel Peace Prize had in the past. The Venezuelan government is an absolute betrayal of any socialist orientation, pretending to be a fraternal, sovereign and revolutionary country, when it is actually a violent and dictatorial government that is allied to genocidal and terrorist countries such as Iran. The Statement of Perez Esquivel is shameful and is an affront to Human Rights, justifying violence under the pretext that there is a possible and unlikely pursuit of destabilization and overthrow against the government of Maduro. In Venezuela there is no socialist revolution, but only a rich and powerful governmental elite manipulating and impoverishing the people through Populism. Perez Esquivel's attitude to justify the violence against the Venezuelan people calling for democracy and liberty is repudiated by the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights as a grievance to World Peace, which paradoxically goes in tune with the illegal behavior of many other Nobel Peace Prize laureates. The pursuit of democracy and liberty is not an internal affair of Venezuela, but rather constitutes a supreme human right that can and must be defended by the entire international community. In this sense, Perez Esquivel's statements in support of a regime that carries out crimes against humanity are despicable and worrisome. While the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights condemns the international crimes committed by the United States, this does not necessarily imply that the Tribunal is in favor of the enemies of the United States. This fact demonstrates that the great mistake of political activists like Perez Esquivel is that they often incur dualism, not being able to keep a position that is critical, detached and empty of ideology, because for this kind of activists, making a criticism to governments like Venezuela automatically implies supporting governments such as the United States, and vice versa. The Communiqué of Perez Esquivel demands unrestricted respect for the sovereignty of Venezuela, but he ignores that sovereignties of States are not absolute, but they are limited by the values and principles of International Human Rights Law. Thus, when the international community requires the Venezuelan government to respect democracy and human rights, this act obviously does not constitute aggression and intrusion. The real external interference is that of States such as the Vatican, which supports Venezuela's dictatorial regime instead of working for democracy and liberty of the people. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights expresses solidarity and condolences to the relatives of the demonstrators killed by the Venezuelan government, assuming the commitment so that their voices are not totally silenced by tyrannical presidents, abusive religions and false Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

lunes, 24 de abril de 2017

Judgment of Case Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice

Case  24/2017: Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela or TSJ)


Dear Prosecutor, Public Defender, Ambassador and Jury Members of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR), concerning the Case 24-2017 against the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), on April 12, 2017, it is put on record that the trial of the Buddhist Tribunal has been concluded in order to analyze the Human Rights violation by the accused. This Case has been carried out as a consequence of "Case 21: Captain Strauss”.
After analyzing the presentation of the case and the validation of the enormous amount of evidence, there has been a unanimous vote of 6 members of the Jury, all of whom have sentenced the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) as "Responsible" for the serious crimes of VIOLATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OF LAW AND VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW. The actions of Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) when carrying out a coup d’état have produced enormous damage against the Democracy and Justice of the Venezuelan people, but also a huge damage against the Rule of Law at the international level by systematically breaching the global standards in matter of Human Rights. These terrible acts demonstrate that members of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) have violated both the Human Rights treaties and the ethical precepts of Buddhist Spirituality, which is the constitutional guardian of the world. Although during the framework of this trial the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) has theoretically annulled the coup d'état, giving back the faculties of immunity and the creation of laws to the Venezuelan Parliament, actually the Coup continues to exist because the Venezuelan Tribunal systematically annuls all Parliament’s decisions when declaring it in contempt. In addition, the Venezuelan Tribunal must be held accountable for having violated International Law and the very Venezuela's Constitution inspired by the values of the liberator Simon Bolivar, thus forgetting that the behavior of judges must be ethically exemplary anytime and anywhere. In this sense, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights establishes that the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) is not only disrespectful to the International Courts, but also has a lack of impartiality, lack of independence or separation of powers, lack of transparency, lack of legitimacy, a presence of precariousness and presence of nepotism.
The international legal reform carried out by the Buddhist Law has as its core the defense of fundamental rights, and therefore exercises its Ethical Power as a supreme body to oversee compliance with the human rights Treaties, which are systems of juridical order that are superior to any local Constitution. Maitriyana also opened up to the defense of other fundamental rights that constitute an external human rights source, since its pluralism expands the fundamental rights by additionally incorporating the rights of non-human beings. By doing this task, the Buddhist Law interprets all existing instruments, also validating the Customary Law of the Tribal Peoples. Precisely the Maitriyana's ethics committees and tribunals of conscience are international tribal courts whose function is to resolve cases of violations of Buddhist Ethics and Fundamental Rights contemplated in both the human rights treaties and the ancient practices of aboriginal peoples. In the constitutional relationship between countries with international Treaties, a president or a local court under no circumstances is able to interpret the international functions of the Buddhist Tribunal, primarily because they do not have the competence to do so, since there would be a radical lack of knowledge in the way how Buddhist Law works, which is as legitimate as the International Human Rights Law. When Maitriyana finds a violation against Buddhist Ethics or Fundamental Rights it can condemn a subject, an institution or a State, and there should be no material or legal obstacle that leaves this Ethical Judgment without effect, otherwise, a situation of injustice and impunity would be perpetuated. The Buddhist Civilization of ancient times developed an expansive jurisprudence of the collective rights of the spiritual commune (sangha), enforcing the ethical judgments of Buddhist Law against the State and opening the doors to a tripartite republican relationship in which the spiritual commune was privileged (Sangha) as an Ethical Power or supervisory organ of State Power and People's Power. Therefore, Maitriyana reminds that Buddhist Spirituality is the oldest human rights and animal rights defending movement in the history of humankind. This juridical and republican status that the spiritual commune (sangha) had in Buddhist Civilization of the past undoubtedly allows and legitimizes the Buddhist Law's international capability to investigate and prosecute cases of human rights violations, such as crimes against humanity, having the duty to protect democracy, equality, the right to peace and also freedom of expression and information of peoples. In this sense, the Maitriyana nourishes the processes of fulfillment of the political, economic, cultural and environmental rights. Buddhist Law rules judgments that imply a justifiable evolution of Law, which is a development that would be the envy of great jurists of history, like Marcus Tullius Cicero, Jeremy Bentham, John Marshall and Hans Kelsen. Although individuals, institutions and states may decide not to comply with the ethical rulings of the Maitriyana courts, this does not necessarily de-legitimize the Ethical Power of the spiritual commune (sangha), which has been de facto transformed into the Supreme Court of Planetary Justice, and at the same time has replaced the UN as an ethical and constitutional guardian of the fundamental rights of all humanity. This Power comes undoubtedly from the life impulse of the Free and Enlightened Beings (Arhats-Bodhisattvas) running through the veins of the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights. Although States have not voluntarily submitted themselves to comply with the judgments of Buddhist Law, they have certainly committed themselves internationally to comply with fundamental rights through Human Rights Treaties and Conventions which are within the legal framework of the Maitriyana. In this pluralistic understanding, the Buddhist Law considers that if its faculties are the defense of human dignity and fundamental rights, then any State that is governed by Human Rights Treaties is indirectly under the special and international jurisdiction of the courts of Maitriyana. After making a legal interpretation based on Tribal Law and the doctrine of international human rights organizations, the Buddhist Law interprets it has legitimacy and validity to keep and develop its legal institutions at the national and international level. Thus, even if the binding character of the decisions of Maitriyana's international courts are denied, States have a moral and humanitarian obligation to circumscribe themselves to decisions on those matters in which Buddhist Law has competence. This reinterpretation regarding the reception and enforceability of the fundamental rights contemplated in international human rights treaties shows the obligations that the States have to the ethical judgments of Maitriyana as the maximum defender of human dignity. The Buddhist Law is part of the republican structure of the ancient Buddhist Civilization, whose form of co-government was composed of the authorities of the Executive Power, the People and the Spiritual Commune (Sangha). Consequently, States cannot fail to respect the decisions of the international courts of Maitriyana by claiming that these are invalid, since Buddhist Law is a millennial institution that precedes the very existence of States. Nor can States fail to respect these ethical judgments by claiming that Maitriyana does not have legitimacy in the present, for at present this community heads the supreme organ of the Global Ethical Power that is the United Buddhist Nations Organization. Moreover, in case States fail to respect the ethical judgments of Buddhist Law, they would be ignoring the role of spiritual masters as representatives of human dignity. Therefore, States have a legal duty to observe and comply with international human rights Treaties, not being able to invoke local provisions to breach their duties, which must always be progressively in favor of persons. Thus, the States have the obligation to refrain from dictating acts that may frustrate the purpose and end of the human rights protected by the Maitriyana. States then have a legal duty that their actions do not conflict with the values, principles or attributions of Buddhist Law, which develops architectural principles of a new civilization of human rights, which would not only come from the international rule of Law but also from the constitutional and customary rules of the spiritual community (sangha). The international courts of Maitriyana not only have a collaborative or complementary nature of the domestic Law of countries, but also have a status of transcending instance that can review the decisions of the local States and Courts when they may be violations of Ethics and Human Dignity, which is an absolute competence of Buddhist Law. Although Maitriyana's international courts do not have binding power to revoke decisions of States, they can certainly supervise them ethically, judging them when States do not take the necessary measures to remedy violations of fundamental rights analyzed according to the principles of Ethics and Human Dignity. Buddhist Law uses non-restrictive or non-literary interpretive guidelines with respect to international human rights instruments, which allows it to develop peak knowledges (satoris) that are always expansive, virtuous and humanitarian. Consequently, the use of international human rights Treaties, which have a higher hierarchy than national laws, validates the Maitriyana international courts as a supreme trans-sovereign body. The broad, dynamic and virtuous utilization and interpretation made by Buddhist Law on international treaties and conventions make that its decisions have a rank of supralegality. Indeed, Maitriyana's international courts have been conceived as institutions that are used to apply on States a view based on the sources of International Human Rights Law, including the ethical jurisprudence of Buddhist Law. This ethical control of conventionality states that all organs of a State that are subject to human rights Treaties or Conventions must comply with and apply the decisions of international courts defending or protecting such Treaties. It is here where the Maitriyana in a contemporary way exercises an Ethical Power of supervision or control of conventionality, which paradoxically was the old role of the spiritual commune (Sangha) in the Buddhic Civilization, being able to review the issuance and application of legal norms and administrative decisions of the State, only by granting validity to any action that is compatible with Ethics and Human Dignity. This interpretation on the legitimacy of Buddhist Law results in an evolution in the institutionality and legal security of the international community, strengthening and advancing the achievements gained in the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms built on the basis of two thousand six hundred years of peaceful struggle and social commitment. Hence, the collective right of the spiritual community (sangha) to its juridical self-determination is effective and non-illusory, being broadly protected by international human rights Treaties and also by the defense of fundamental rights in the local Constitutions. It results also fundamental the international duty of States toward the right to Truth and the right of review of the victims of human rights violations. The international courts of Maitriyana recover the ancient role of the spiritual community (Sangha) during the Buddhic-Civilization, acting as an Ethical Power or Supreme Ombudsman, a guardian of the fundamental rights of sentient beings, so that the individual and collective rights owned by the spiritual community (sangha) are obligatory for all the States of the world.
For two thousand six hundred years the Buddhist Law was constituted as a revolutionary social movement that gradually developed a Civilization system throughout Southeast Asia, providing a response to the lack of values that suffers much of society. Indeed, in the Buddhic Civilization system, the spiritual commune (sangha) functioned as a Republican Ethical Power, overseeing the righteous behavior of both the people and the government. This Ethical Power regulating the executive, legislative, judicial and electoral powers is the historical origin of the great spiritual renewal that the Maitriyana currently leads, promoting a political, economic, cultural and environmental revolution. This process of transformation of the human community is a process of Liberation, Egalitarianism and Fraternity, raising the voice of mutual support to save the world from the onslaughts of immorality, which affects the internal and external world. Therefore, the Buddhist Law provides an ethic that acts from the field of what is personal and the linkages to the field of what is social, institutional and political. Faced with a world with war crises, social injustice, ignorance of values and environmental corruption, the Maitriyana expresses that it seeks the democratic development of human life, promoting the participation of every human being in decision making on the welfare of the entire planet. Certainly, humanity will not be able to survive and evolve if political, economic, cultural and environmental actions are not guided by the ethical principles of Buddhist Law, which develops its activity not to seize power or to enrich itself selfishly but with the aim of serving the international community. In the Maitriyana's Analytical-Existential-Libertarian Discourse (Buddha-Dharma-Sangha) it is noted that the loss of the essential values that characterize contemporary civilization is a process of increasing desacralization of life, so that it is fundamental seeking to transform the ways of cultural transmission and production, abandoning materialism, consumerism and superficialism in pursuit of the advent of the ethics of solidarity, mutual support and detachment. In seeking to displace the psychic and social evils of greed, hatred and deceit, the Buddhist Law creates and produces a new human being. This ethical revolution of Maitriyana is the development of spiritual values, reaffirming once again the millenarian republican Power that the spiritual commune (sangha) played in the ancient Buddhist Civilization: the Ethical Power. Therefore, the Buddhist Tribunal would not only be a new creation in Asia, but would also exist a precedent in America, because the great revolutionary Simon Bolivar proposed to develop a Moral Power as a social institution directed both to the formation of a responsible citizenship and to ensure the ethical exercise of public offices. Thus, the proposal of Buddhist Law as an Ethical Power in republican States results no stranger to the historical experience of the peoples of East and West, which thanks to Siddharta Gautama and Simon Bolivar know that it must be avoided to be dominated by deceit and to be degraded by vice. Without the presence of this Republican Ethical Power, governments are neither free nor enlightened, falling into corruption, warmongering and manipulation. To restore the old form of ethical and altruistic civilization, the Maitriyana is proposed as a Supranational Power that educates and keeps humanity in the field of ethical and spiritual values. In short, the spiritual masters are the only ones who reflect deeply on the future of humanity, while at the same time working daily for their event. Natural resources are often a source of economic development for States, so that spiritual resources, that are the Free and Enlightened Beings (Arhats-Bodhisattvas), are essential sources for enabling a cultural growth and evolution of the world. Buddhist law, as the supervisor of the international community, is then a true ethical revolution that offers the antidote to the main poisons of society. Although corruption in Latin America, war in America, xenophobia in Europe, marginalization in Africa, terrorism in the Middle East, authoritarianism in Asia and depredation in Oceania seem to be structural behaviors of contemporary civilization, the Maitriyana teaches righteous actions and adequate measures to prevent or evade these evils, cultivating the seeds of a better world for the sake of present and future generations.
Although the mass media often transmit a world that has lost the values of contemplation, knowledge and solidarity, the Buddhist Law develops the vision of Gautama and Bolivar on the Republican Ethical Power in order to build a more equal, democratic and harmonious society. This vision is drawn daily from the experience and reflection of the spiritual masters of the last two thousand six hundred years, who constitute the main paths towards the realization of the Supreme Purpose (Dharma) of humanity. This effort of Maitriyana is linked to the system of Buddhic Civilization in which there was a form of republican co-government between the king, the people and the spiritual commune (sangha). This shows that the future always has precedents in the past. Like the Vatican during the medieval era, in the contemporary world, the United Nations has attempted to exercise the role of Supervisory Ethical Power proposed by Gautama and Bolivar, although undoubtedly both the Vatican and the UN have failed in this mission by maintaining a system of corruption and impunity. Buddhist Law, instead, has the fundamental ethical guidelines to be able to guide the nations of the world with purity in pursuit of a common action between different States and organizations in favor of the collective interests of humanity and Mother Earth (Pachamama), avoiding any kind of corruption, warmongering and deceit. This Ethical Power should not be installed, since it actually has already existed for two thousand six hundred years. Maitriyana's ethical commitment is nothing more than the Discourse attempting to reveal the true nature of society, by regulating the conduct of the international community by nurturing and becoming transparent the available mechanisms of Ethical Power that already exist in the governments of the world. The Ethical Power of Buddhist Law encompasses politics, economics, culture and environment, having universal jurisdiction over the defense of the rights of all sentient beings. Therefore, this rectification and evolution of individual and social behaviors must be supported, strengthening the foundations of the Path toward a new human life. Maitriyana's tradition takes care of values and virtues, because its work and spirit of service promotes and develops the growth of a healthy and educated society. The strong engagement of Buddhist Law with the ethical and spiritual values strengthens mechanisms of Ethical Power that ensure the fulfillment of the righteousness in the subject and in society.
In conclusion, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has the Purpose (Dharma) to save all sentient beings through the Supreme Law, which implies a direct criticism of corrupt Courts attempting against Justice. Therefore, it is established that the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) is violating human rights, especially violating the constitutional democratic State of Law. Undoubtedly, national and international Courts should be working together in creating a civilization governed by the Rule of Law, thinking of bringing righteousness to society instead of creating ways to corrupt it. Without an ethical and spiritual guidance the Courts become corrupt and partial, leading the sacred practice of Justice through a Pathway of totalitarian and antidemocratic perversion whose consequences are no less than the perversion of the Social Contract. Only by practicing the Way of Ethics and Liberty, as prescribed by Master Gautama, the Courts will not only be able to avoid damaging human dignity and fundamental rights, but they also will be able to develop Justice as a form of social evolution. In this way, the Case on the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) is a great teaching for the international community, proving perfectly that if Courts operate lacking of ethics and righteousness - as happens in the Justice of dictatorial countries - then the Courts become an evil in the world, because they only provide greed, hatred and deceit instead of providing solidarity, empathy and Truth. Instead, when Courts are guided by the Ethical Power of human rights and the Buddhist Spirituality, then they remain free of all destructive power, being able to help the human being is liberated by means of righteousness.
It is also recorded that during the framework of the Ethical Judgment against the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ), the government of such country has violently suppressed manifestations carried out by the citizens in protest of the antidemocratic situation. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights demands respect for the civil and political rights of demonstrators in order to meet peacefully and express freely without discrimination on the grounds of political orientation, so that any kind of police repression against public political demonstrations should be prohibited. This type of human rights violations are also being carried out in another country in Latin America, because in Argentina violent repressive techniques are also being used and even the right to strike by teachers seeking a living wage is being attacked. All this shows that in both Venezuela and Argentina there is a lack of understanding about what a democratic constitutional State of Law really is, since democracy is associated only with the act of voting rather than associating democracy with ethical principles that put limits on governmental Power by intervening in decision-making. In short, true democracy does not happen in the illusions of electoral processes, but when the people perform an ongoing ethical supervision of government decisions, because otherwise democracies are perverted into dictatorships of majorities.
Following the Path of Master Gautama, who developed the most righteous and restorative Justice system in the history of humankind, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights oversees that national and international courts not to pervert and commit violations against ethics and human rights, so that the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) has been sentenced as "Responsible" for VIOLATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL STATE OF LAW AND VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
With spirit of reconciliation (maitri),
Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha

President and Spiritual Judge of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) and Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR)

miércoles, 19 de abril de 2017

Judgment of Case Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Case 22/2017: Salk Institute for Biological Studies & Jun Wu


Dear Prosecutor, Public Defender, Ambassador and Jury Members of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR), regarding the case against Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu, through this document, on April 3rd 2017, it is recorded that the Case 22-2017 of the Buddhist Tribunal has been concluded in order to analyze the violation of human rights by the accused ones. This case has been carried out as a result of a complaint made by the Maitriyana Buddhist University against immoral experiments.
After analyzing the presentation of the case and the validation of the enormous amount of evidence, it took place a unanimous vote by 5 members of the Jury, all of whom have sentenced the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu as "Responsible" for the serious charges of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS. The actions of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu in creating a human-pig hybrid have produced enormous damage to the Genetic Heritage of Humankind, but also an enormous damage to the rights of animals that are non-human subjects. These terrible facts demonstrate that members of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies have broken both the human rights treaties as well as the ethical precepts of Buddhist Spirituality as guardian of all sentient beings.
Even though the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu have publicly stated that their creation of hybrids seeks an alleged aim of public welfare, which is the massive production of organs intended for transplants, science cannot violate the limits of Ethics, the Law and Human Rights. The consequences of this kind of transgressions on the part of science have produced disasters in the history of humanity as, for example, the creation of the atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is because when science is not guided by ethics, humanitarianism and compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), as happens with the creation of biological weapons, catastrophes occur that jeopardize the very existence of humanity and of Mother Earth. Because in biotechnology the knowledge is technical, most of these experts are absolutely unaware of the ethical and humanitarian limits, so they promote their researches towards technical applications and never towards the welfare and peace of humankind. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights seeks to ensure that science follows the highest standards, promoting knowledge but permanently being directed toward the safeguard of human dignity and the fundamental rights. In this way, scientific knowledge must be used with special responsibilities, seeking to meet the higher needs and aspirations of the human being, such as peace, justice, wisdom and compassion. Science has the ethical duty to contribute to social welfare and sustainable development, protecting present and future generations always in harmony with nature and always avoiding serious and irreversible risks. The biotechnological use of the human genetic heritage has a global and transgenerational effect, so it should always be guided by ethics. Buddhist Law's effective response to scientific interventions that manipulate human genome is the prohibition and condemnation of such actions, showing them as internationally illegal. In this sense, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights protects the political, economic, cultural and environmental rights, guaranteeing supreme respect for peace and intergenerational development, including the protection of human rights to genetic identity, to individual and collective genetic integrity, to imperfection, to genetic diversity and to variability. Buddhist Law has the capability to issue juridical provisions, jurisprudential decisions and international legal principles that are applicable to actions of scientific research and technological development, especially if they affect health and the physical, mental and moral integrity of the people, in order that science is exercised with responsibility and preserving dignity. In this context, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights regulates the development of genetic science and its effect on sentient beings, providing protection and legal security to humankind facing the unrestrained advances of genetic science. The Buddhist Law recognizes as a passive subject to any juridical person in which the scientific genetic actions fall, so that at the public and supraindividual level the subject is the whole humanity while at individual or particular level the subject may be cells, germinal lines, zygotes, embryos, tissues, organs, babies, adults and even corpses. For this reason, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights not only protects sentient beings from the moment of its very fertilization, but also through analysis and bioethical condemnation it even protects future entities such as the genetic heritage of future generations. Thus, Buddhist Law considers the genetic manipulation in the germinal line during the embryonic development as a crime, seeking to avoid the manipulation of the human genetic identity, which is the alteration of the natural development of genes. Although there are supposed therapeutic purposes, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights coincides with Genetic Law in the fact that this manipulation would be a crime that must be criminally punished. Therefore, the offense of germ line genetic manipulation would include genetic therapy, eugenics, clonation and genetic engineering of human-animal hybrids, especially when the created embryo is discarded by systematic abortion, rather than treat it with the respect that human dignity implies. The defense of the human right to the integrity of the genetic patrimony implies the ethical condemnation to the genetic manipulation, even if it can get to look for optimum, healthy or evolved human beings. In this sense, with genetic manipulation, there is a limit that science should never trespass, since otherwise humanity would become a mere means or instrument in a new modality of racism and even slavery. On the other hand, the defense of the human right to genetic integrity implies the protection of the biochemical dimension and also the protection of the natural habitat where the genome is developed. Thus, if the human genetic patrimony is implanted in the body of an animal in order to create human organs, the conversion of the genetic code into proteins would have been carried out in a non-natural or non-human habitat, which entails the risk of altering the genetic structure of these human organs.
Concordantly, when science conducts hybrid experiments, such as creating mice with human brains, there is no ethics or humanitarianism in this kind of actions, but a propensity for stupidity and disproportion, since human genetic heritage and integrity of animals is violated for the sole purpose of producing consumer goods, as if life were but an instrument. This type of perspective has led the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights to affirm, within the framework of Case 08-2015 Australia, that Capitalism is a Crime against humanity, precisely because it turns the human being into a mere instrument or object. Buddhist Law then considers that a possible example of an ethical purpose in the creation of hybrids is not the production of organs for transplants, but it could be the fact of trying to produce a consciousness evolution of animals, but even this type of apparently benevolent goals should be carried out through appropriate means and not by spurious means, because the genetic humanization of animals - by incorporating human genetic material - perverts the dignity and sacred potentialities of human life. In this way, an appropriate means of animal evolution developed by science could be not to resort to the incorporation of genetic material but rather to develop the animal brain by strengthening new synapses or connections between neurons that are vital for conscious thought. However, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights states that the evolution of animal life and human life does not actually occur through genetic or physical changes, but rather through cultural changes. This means that the Liberation or Awakening, as a true evolution of life, does not happen through a change in the brain, but rather occurs through the full development of the potentialities of liberty, equality and fraternity, which are values that can be found and deepened in animal life without the need to resort to genetic experiments. In effect, the potentialities for love, friendship and solidarity, even for knowledge, are also present in animals, especially in advanced mammals, as demonstrated in the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Non-Human Beings. Even Buddhism has the particularity of having recognized in the Dasabodhisattuppattikatha text that the last two Sammasambuddhas of the future - Buddha Tissa and Buddha Sumangala - will come from the spiritual evolution of two elephants. This means that there is an explicit recognition to the fact that the dharmic nature or intrinsic dignity is not only found in human beings but also in all living beings, especially in large mammals such as elephants, hominids, cetaceans and pigs.
The perversion of scientific and humanitarian ethics by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu violates the right to life and to non-genetic manipulation of animals. This violation of fundamental rights is completely unnecessary, since the supposed aim of these pseudo-scientists, which is the capitalistic production of transplant organs, can be perfectly achieved by means of other contemporary technologies such as 3D bioprinters, which have already demonstrated the capability of imprinting human organs and living tissues, as has been investigated by the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine (WFIRM). Here the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights finds an example of science and biotechnology that would not violate humanity's genetic heritage by not resorting to the creation of human-animal hybrids.
That said, the question to be debated would be what ethical position should be adopted in the case of human-animal hybrids that had already been created or born. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights believes that the Catholic Church's view that these beings would be monsters would actually lead to disaster, as it would be an endorsement to their possible assassination. A hybrid should not be treated differently from the rights of children or disabled people. Furthermore, the true monsters of the world are immoral scientists and pedophile priests. Therefore, the Buddhist Law establishes that hybrid experimentation should be prohibited, although in case they had already been created and born, these beings should not be treated as objects of consumption but they should fully receive fundamental freedoms and human rights because, given the fact that they are descendants of humankind, inside them inhabits the intrinsic dignity of the human genetic heritage. In this sense, it is evident that the most terrible crime of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu is not the creation of hybrids but rather dispossessing these sentient beings from their fundamental rights and intrinsic dignity. Precisely, in deciding that these hybrid beings would not deserve the rank of people, the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu have violated the human dignity, considering humanity as a mere means in a utilitarian way. This racist exclusion from the rank of person against a hybrid being has a perverse background in history, since in the past, disabled people, aborigines, African-American, and Jewish were also excluded from the rank of person. The great danger of creating human-animal hybrids is that it will probably unleash the creation of a new human species devoid of human rights, which could become enslaved or used as a mere object. As happened in the past with indigenous peoples, African Americans and Jews, having a large set of enslave human beings seems to be the dream of capitalism, which has always considered workers as a mere instrument of economic gain and never as an end in itself. This kind of creation of human-animal hybrids would surely be a way in which capitalism would secure free labor, creating and exploiting intelligent beings with no human rights, ceasing to consider human dignity as an end in itself, in order to pervert it by treating it as a mere object or means. The human being cannot be considered as a thing, but it always deserves respect for the free development of its potentialities. The creation of human-animal hybrids, together with discrimination and genetic determinism and with reproductive, therapeutic and hybrid cloning, constitute an instrumentalization of the human being that violates ethical and juridical guidelines at the international level. Coinciding with Kant, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights affirms that human beings are not a means but are ends in themselves, because they possess an intrinsic and ontological dignity that is common to all the descendants of the human family, regardless of their level of self-determination, rationality, self-perception, ethical behavior, gender, race, economic capacity, ideology, genetic material or vital cycle. Thus, even if human-animal hybrids were created without any advanced brain, these beings should have the same human rights as those of a baby, a child or a mentally disabled person, especially considering that human being does not think only with the brain but also with the gut. Buddhist Law considers that hybrid cloning of human-animals is ethically unacceptable for violating respect for human dignity and the protection of genetic integrity. But the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights also states the need to prohibit other forms of genetic manipulation, such as therapeutic cloning in which a cloned embryo is used as a source of resources, undermining the right to biological uniqueness of the human being and violating the right to life by destroying cloned embryos. Certainly, hybrid cloning and therapeutic cloning are perverse techniques that commercialize parts of the human body, by instrumentalizing the human being to satisfy personal or utilitarian needs. The clone created, whether human or hybrid, has the right to exist and the right to genetic individuality, and must express its life without any interference that may damage its integrity or originality in order to realize its vital project and freely develop its personality, without being programmed by scientific expectations or interests. Thus, multiple Declarations, Resolutions and Conventions of International Law have denounced that these genetic engineering procedures have serious ethical and legal problems, being human rights violations that should not be justified or tolerated by society for representing a serious violation of the dignity and fundamental freedoms. The experiments carried out by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu are an offense against human rights for developing a science that instrumentalizes the genetic heritage, undermining the intrinsic dignity of humanity. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is fighting for science to follow ethical norms and International Law, since the direct guardianship of human rights is above any therapeutic, scientific, industrial and commercial interest. This implies remembering the fact that the human being exists as a subject of rights since its fertilization, so that the embryo and the baby should receive respect and non-instrumentalization of their intrinsic dignity. In short, contemporary science is in a course that can decisively alter the future of humanity, since genetic interventions in the germinal line have the genocidal ability to partially or totally destroy the human species. Human rights safeguard and defend the guarantee of Liberation, which is broadened with the respect, solidarity and responsibility, so that human rights are universal, priority and non-negotiable. This means that human rights are violated when there is no universal protection or respect for this intrinsic Liberty of human life, which is what International Law and Buddhist Law respectively refer to as human dignity or dharmic nature.
After establishing that the creation of human-animal hybrids constitutes a violation of human dignity, it is certainly very easy to understand that this act constitutes a Crime against Humanity, since International Law includes inhuman treatment that seriously undermines human dignity as one of the forms of crimes against humanity, as long as they are part of a systematic or generalized plan. In the case of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu, they have systematically planned their crimes against human dignity for more than a decade, and even have explicit plans for their results and procedures to have generalized characteristics in the future. In addition, these inhumane acts of hybrids creation can also be interpreted as a form of medical torture, which is also a crime against humanity, causing serious suffering to the hybrid subject while seriously infringes upon the physical integrity of the genetic human heritage. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with UNESCO on the fact that human genetic heritage must be protected as part of the respect for human dignity and fundamental rights, so that technologies must never compromise the sacredness of the human species and the very life. The Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights agrees with UNESCO on the issue that researches with the human genome must respect and be compatible with International Human Rights Law, having the duty to prohibit and condemn scientific practices contrary to human dignity and fundamental freedoms such as the hybrid cloning or therapeutic cloning. As embryos are created for experimentation purposes and without the requirement of free and informed consent by the test subject, these experiments of human-animal hybrids are prohibited by the principles of the Nuremberg International Tribunal, which also requires human experimentation is justified by benefits that cannot be obtained by other means. As has been shown, experiments by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu are capricious and unnecessary, because 3D printer technologies are another method that would provide a simpler and more ethical way of mass production of transplantation organs without having to create hybrids and then causing them physical harm or death. Another principle of Nuremberg violated by the creation of human-animal hybrids for transplants is that the degree of risk of altering human genetic heritage far exceeds the supposed humanitarian importance of the problem that this experiment aims to solve, since the number of patients who need transplants by disease issues is a minor problem compared to the hundreds of millions of people who die because of war, poverty, ignorance and pollution. In addition, from the International Law's perspective, such genetic experiments are inhuman acts because they produce lesions, disfigurement and mutilation to the organs of the hybrid subject. These biological experiments conducted by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu are a contemporary form of inhuman treatment and medical torture because they violate human dignity and integrity, being a form of violence and an attack on life. Such acts constitute an outrage against the supreme right to human dignity and self-determination, producing living beings without fundamental rights who are subjected to a treatment of contempt, humiliation, degradation and homicide. These experiments instrumentalize human life, so that they are incompatible with the fundamental rights and values of the legal and political order at the international level. Both Buddhist Law and International Human Rights Law oblige science to respect the integrity and dignity of human life. Therefore, genetic experiments that can trigger the biological inferiority of the participant subject are prohibited. The attack on human dignity is the final barrier that science must never cross, and the ethical task of the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is to defend this intrinsic dignity or dharmic nature in order it is never violated. In fact, like Ambedkar, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that Justice is just another name for Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, while at the same time it could be established that the ethical principle underlying these three essential values is the principle of Respect for the dignity and non-instrumentalization of humankind. The precepts of Buddhist Law and International Law use this concept of dignity in the sense of affirming that there is a nature that is intrinsic to the condition of person which deserves to be respected. Thus, although science has the right to genetic research, just like the right to freedom of expression, this right is not absolute because it has ethical limits that should never be violated, such as precautionary and prudential criteria, in order to protect dignity and respect for human rights.
The creation of human-animal hybrids initiates a meta-ethical debate in which the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is positioned as a Constitutional Guardian of Humanity and Mother Earth. Because it is an independent, plural and transparent ethics committee, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has the ability to supervise or disapprove scientific experiments operating against the regulatory framework of International Human Rights Law. In this regard, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights ruled that the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu are "Responsible" for committing crimes against humanity, as their conduct has aggrieved the very nature of human being, affecting their intrinsic dignity in carrying out serious violations of the international obligation to safeguard individual and collective human dignity. The entire international community has been aggrieved by these crimes committed by the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu, who have affected one of the most precious aspects of a human person: the integrity of the genetic heritage. Indeed, these cruel and inhumane medical torture procedures have violated the physical, mental and moral integrity of humankind, even though the accused ones may claim their actions caused no pain. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu have violated human dignity because they have not oriented their scientific research towards the principles of respect for the right to life, respect for the right to recognition of legal identity and respect for the right to the preservation of genetic integrity or oneness.
Undoubtedly, another possible consequence of allowing such immoral and illegal experiments is that manipulation of the human genetic heritage leads to eugenics, a Nazi scientific method that consists in preventing the existence of individuals with unwanted genes or characteristics, seeking genetic perfection in the spurious method of starting to design stronger and more intelligent humans. Therefore, faced with a humanity seeking improvements through artificial and technological means, the Buddhist Law establishes that humanity must evolve through cultural and spiritual means, such as it has been doing for thousands of years. Precisely, the spiritual masters teach that evolution is not genetic but ethical. However, contemporary science is oriented toward the dark horizon of evolution through technology, either through genetic manipulation or through inserting machines within bodies. This quest for improving natural human abilities is a lack of knowledge of all the ethical and spiritual heritage of history, so that the Buddhist Law must fight to prevent this evil, teaching humanity that the Path of Cure of suffering can never be carried out by means of increasing the computerized rational intelligence or by means of the acquisition of new bodily abilities product of the incorporation of technologies that reprogram DNA. The human being, unlike computers, has the potentialities of emotional intelligence, social intelligence, ecological intelligence and spiritual intelligence, and this is what must be developed in order to evolve. Genetic reprogramming technologies that occur through inter-species hybridization processes or through the incorporation of microscopic nanotechnology not only won't cure suffering of humanity but will open up a further breach of social injustice, since surely; rich and powerful elites are those who will access the most important technologies, excluding all those who are poor and oppressed. In contrast to Transhumanism, a philosophy that proposes human evolution through technology, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that artificial intelligence may help human beings to develop and evolve only if science is under the supervision of spiritual values and ethical principles, otherwise humanity would involute into a species lacking the best legacy of life: compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajña). In this sense, it should be noted that the distance between the ordinary animal and the human being is the same distance as between the ordinary human being and the Awakened Being (Buddha), which means the Free and Enlightened Beings (Arhats-Bodhisattvas) are precursors of a possible evolutionary future of humanity. This possible evolutionary path of the superhuman or Homo Spiritualis is purely natural and non-technological. For the Buddhist Law, Transhumanism should not be materialistic and technological, but spiritual and ethical, since materialism leads to barbarity and inhumanity. If humanity is obsessed with a technological evolution without ethical and spiritual guidance, then it will gradually lose fundamental aspects of human dignity, such as goodness, love, humor, art, philosophy, literature, science, friendship and fatherhood. Contrary to the contemporary scientific view that humanity evolves in a desirable direction, the Buddhist Law must show that this path actually leads to the self-destruction of humanity.
However, in view of the fact that the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights prohibits and declares the genetic manipulation of human-animal hybrids as illegal, it should be made clear that this rule has only one exception. Faced with a probable catastrophic event in which planet Earth would be driven to inevitable destruction, humankind would have the collective right to survive in other planets. Even so, in order to perform such a cosmic achievement, humanity should obligatorily make a genetic modification that allows it to survive the arduous environmental conditions of outer space or other planets. Undoubtedly a human-artificial hybridization or a possible hybridization with living beings such as the Tardigrade (also known as waterbears or moss piglets) would provide hibernation capacities for hundreds of years and also abilities to resist high levels of heat and cold, which is necessary to survive both in space and in other planets. The exception to the prohibition of genetic manipulation demonstrates that the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is not morally dogmatic, since this exception is the case of a modification of the collective genetic heritage in order to respect the collective right to survival of species, and it should only be applied facing an enormous need to respect the right to life of all humankind. Clearly, the experiments of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu do not meet the requirement of necessity to be an exception to the rule prohibiting genetic manipulation. This exception to the rule could not be used to save an individual life, since collective rights could not be violated in order to respect an individual right, nor should this exception be applied to the creation of immortal human beings. Effectively, as the philosopher Savater argues in his reading of Ernst Cassirer, the essential aspect of human consciousness is the understanding of time and the fact that in the future the subject is going to die, since understanding that there is death precisely revalues life, because an eternal life would lack all value and transcendence. This awareness of death and finitude is the engine of life projects. But if science creates immortal human beings, as it is proposed to do in the future, then it would create beings without any appreciation for life. This demonstrates that the ideas of materialistic Transhumanism are dangerous, in addition of having been influenced by the Futurism of Marinetti and the Eugenics of Galton, both movements with ideas used by Fascism. Although the Buddhist Law shares with Transhumanism the premise that Homo Sapiens is not the end of evolution but the beginning, and also shares the issue that nonhuman beings (plants, animals, artificial intelligence, post human and extraterrestrial beings) deserve fundamental rights, the Spirituality undoubtedly is unable to endorse the dangerous idea of Transhumanism to seek immortality in a digital substrate, because this search violates the three features of existence discovered by Gautama: imperfection, impermanence and insubstantiality. These existential features are inevitable and science should not try to repress them, but should imitate the spiritual masters, who turn these inevitable features into a source of compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna) and peak knowledge (satori), because even suffering is a source of spiritual maturity. Like Frankl, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that the Stoic attitude towards inevitable suffering is the culmination of existential maturity, overcoming suffering not through technology but through a contemplative attitude that appreciates the experiences of nature, the artistic experiences, the sense of humor, experiences of the past, solitude and Spirituality. Contemporary science should not seek perfection and immortality of the human being, but must learn from the Free and Enlightened Beings (Arhats-Bodhisattvas), by positioning themselves with the strength of serenity faced with the conflicts of what is unavoidable.
Unlike the philosopher Sloterdijk, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that a genetic-technical revision of human being should be prohibited, since the utopia of justice should never be replaced with technological fantasies that do nothing but only revive fascist racism and totalitarianism of the twentieth century with their ambitions of eugenic control. In opposition to the philosopher Sloterdijk, Buddhist Law considers that a plan of domestication and breeding of humanity should not be developed, even if this is in the name of order and social purity, since the genetic production of a herd-consciousness human being does nothing but create impotent uncultivated masses and omnipotent ruling elites. In this way, the science of genetic manipulation can become the new face of fascism, which has always dreamed with mass production of beautiful, healthy and intelligent human beings. This technological and barbaric Transhumanism will always have an opposite or nemesis: the Buddhist Spirituality. In fact, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights works for a transhuman future but carried out by ethical and non-technological means, since otherwise humanity would involute in savagery. Thus, spiritual masters struggle against the dehumanization or inhumanization proposed by the society of entertainment, which, like the ancient Roman Coliseum, always aspires to cruelty and massacre as a form of fascist entertainment.
In conclusion, Buddhist Law has the Purpose (Dharma) to save all beings through the peak knowledge (satori), which implies a direct criticism to the sciences that covetously attempt against human dignity. Therefore, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights states that any institution or scientist supporting or collaborating with the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu will be complicit in human rights violations. Undoubtedly, scientists should be working together in creating a better world, thinking of saving humankind and nature, instead of making inventions that endanger their existence. Without an ethical and spiritual guidance science becomes an impure and destructive force, leading humanity through a Path of cultural perversion whose consequences are nothing less than the possible destruction of life. Only by practicing Appropriate Knowledge, such as Master Gautama has prescribed in his alternative version of the Tenth Noble Path, science will be able to avoid falling into perversion which is to undermine human dignity and the fundamental rights of non-human beings. In this way, this Case on the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu is a great teaching for humanity, perfectly proving that if medical science works without ethics - as happens with biological weapons, genetic manipulation, abortion and euthanasia - then science becomes an evil in the world, just as materialism and capitalism are. Instead, when science remains guided by the ethical and humanitarian power of compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), it is free from all destructive power, being capable of helping to liberate the human being by means of the peak knowledge (satori).
Following the Path of Master Gautama, who created the noblest science system in the history of humankind, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights oversees that scientific disciplines do not perish and commit crimes violating ethics, human rights, and dignity of life, so that the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the scientist Jun Wu have been sentenced as "Responsible" for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS, constituting the highest attack on genetic heritage of humanity in all its history.
With a spirit of reconciliation (maitri),

Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha
President and Spiritual Judge of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR)