Case
No. 27/2017: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
ETHICAL JUDGMENT
Dear Prosecutor, Public Defender,
Ambassador and Members of the Jury of the International
Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) and the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR), regarding the Case
27-2017 against the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR), on June 26, 2017, it is hereby recorded
that the Ethics Committee's judgment has been concluded to analyze the
violation of Buddhist Ethics and Human Rights on the part of the accused. This
Case has been carried out as a result of the "Case Argentina".
After analyzing the presentation of
the Case and the validation of evidence, the Committee has proceeded with a
unanimous vote of five members of the Jury, all of whom have sentenced the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(IACHR) as "Responsible"
for the serious crimes of VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF BUDDHIST PEOPLES
AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES. The actions of the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) in ignoring the
claims of justice by the Buddhist Temple
World Association of Buddhism have done enormous damage to the dignity and
respect of the Maitriyana Buddhist Community, but also damage the Rule of Human
Rights, which must be developed and evolved in its fulfillment, instead of the
current deterioration and inefficiency. These acts demonstrate that the members
of the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) have violated the victims' human right to justice,
contributing to maintain the status quo of impunity existing in Argentina.
Although for decades the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has had a good development in the
protection of human rights, due to the lack of funding and the lack of sense of
Purpose and Responsibility of its members, it has become a system of justice as
ineffective as the state justice to which it should regulate. Clearly, the
climate of the populist regimes of Latin America, which has systematically and
widespreadly violated the legal institutions, has contributed to this
deterioration. Thus, the members of the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) have forgotten their supreme duty to
defend human rights and fundamental freedoms of both individuals and the
communities. In this sense, the Buddhist
Tribunal on Human Rights establishes that the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has been
disrespectful of the sacredness of individual human rights and collective human
rights owned by the Buddhist People as a tribal community. Therefore, the
Maitriyana Community offers the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) an Ethical Judgment as a way of
restorative juridical teaching, so that this inter-American body may return to
an adequate behavior. If the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) would replace its bureaucrats and uses a
system of restorative justice, this will surely ensure an adequate functioning
at the international level. In order to achieve this, the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has much to learn
from Buddhist Restorative Justice.
The perspective of Buddhist Law is the oldest approach to restorative
justice in the world, serving the rights of victims rather than the aims of the
State, which is why it is concluded that institutions of violent punishment or
legal sanction with imprisonment should be abolished. In fact, imprisonment
as a way to harm the offenders is not really justice, but it is revenge, since
it does not compensate for the damages suffered by the victims and their
families. Thus, the Maitriyana seeks the reform and learning of criminals but
never their suffering, stating that, in fact, prisons do not cure the problem
of crime but rather they make it worse. For the spiritual master, prisons are
clearly the opposite of a place of repentance
and reformation, which is
rather quite similar to a psychological hell that aggravates the existential
situation of the offender. Unlike this vengeful and dehumanizing sphere, the
Buddhist Law promotes the field of contemplation (zen) as a genuine space that
allows one to deal with guilt and the need for forgiveness and Truth, this
being the socially constructive Purpose (Dharma) of the Law. From Maitriyana's
perspective, the state judicial system does not provide adequate or righteous justice, which is why a new system of values
or a scheme of thought is necessary
for the legal system, by developing
a model of peaceful and just social relations. In this sense, the Buddhist Law
never seeks to punish evil or conflict but rather to restore good or harmony,
demonstrating that criminal justice fails whenever there is no social justice.
The individual who commits crimes is the very expression of injustice and
inequity of society, which has failed to educate or produce righteous citizens,
reason why there must be pedagogical mechanisms to correct this systemic
failure. The Maitriyana promotes a social transformation that is the only
source of genuine hope to evanesce crime without the need to use fear or
weapons. The libertarian meditation seeks to reform the character of the delinquent
through the alternative authority of the Awakening (Bodhi), the Law (Dharma)
and the spiritual commune (Sangha). The Buddhist Law has an approach that seeks
the Cure (Nirvana) of crime through the understanding and evanescence of its
causes, thus assuming the deep connection between criminal justice and social
justice. The Free and
Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) teaches that when money income is
equitably distributed then the level of crime and homicide is reduced to the
minimum. This audacious and original idea of conceiving the origin of crime
under economic conditions was not created by Karl Marx but by Siddhartha
Gautama himself, who taught
that the problem of crime is originated when the State does not assume its role
of distributive justice, because
alienation and injustice are associated with violence, immorality and crime. According to
Maitriyana's perspective, the issue of crime is interrelated with the social
context in which it emerges, because when an apprentice enjoys political,
economic, cultural and environmental welfare, his or her possibilities to
commit crimes are reduced as much as possible. This means that it is useless
and even self-contradictory any violent struggle against crime, since violence
cannot be cured through violence. In this way, the Buddhist Law confirms that
crime must be correctly confronted through non-violence, social justice,
education and ecology, teaching that the ends are inseparable from the means. This
teaching of compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna) is the Maitriyana's great
contribution to the world juridical system, positioning the spiritual commune
(sangha) as an organ of international ethical control so that humankind can
follow an adequate example of life through the purification of the free
expression of thought, word and act. However, the
legal code (vinaya) followed by the spiritual commune (sangha) raises rules
that are not absolute but are open to revision and correction, since the
development of Spiritual Awakening (Bodhi) must adapt to different social
circumstances. In short, Buddhist Law considers that the best method of social
treatment against crime is education, teaching the criminal to understand and
refrain from criminal acts. Thus, while
the state legal system is simply focused on punishing or blaming a human being, instead, the Maitriyana
legal system seeks the reform or learning of said individual. The Buddhist Law
is not governed by the system of violent punishment but by a practice of
rehabilitation and educational reform of the individual's mental patterns that
have caused him/her to incur crimes, in addition to seek repentance and
reconciliation (maitri) with those to whom he or she has offended. This healing legal approach can also be
analyzed as a producer of a reintegrative
shame, aiming to calm
the minds of victims and aggressors through catharsis, atonement, restitution
and reconciliation (maitri). Said mechanism
is oriented to true harmonization of the social fabric, promoting the ethical
unity rather than moral coercion that represses conflict and animosity. In this
way, the Maitriyana establishes that happiness is found in the degree of
reconciliation (maitri) that relations have and not in the degree of material
possessions or status. This spiritual wealth forms an essential part of the
ethical standards of the legal code (vinaya) created by Gautama, who has
influenced legal systems such as Tibet and Bhutan, in which each apprentice has
a legal responsibility to protect the dignity of the others' life. In this sense,
the ethical-legal system of Buddhist Law promotes an honest model of life based
on the quest for Truth, Good and pluralism, conceiving the restorative justice
as a new legal model for the world by
focusing on the need for spiritual harmonization and not in penal punishment.
However, the existence of Maitriyana's ethics committees and conscience
tribunals is an offense against the legal monopoly that the state's
bureaucratic institutions have in order to maintain social control. Against
this, the spiritual master declares that legal bureaucracy is the antithesis of the community's justice, regulating the
social cohesion through fear and not through organic communal relationships
based on love and mercy. The justice system of the Buddhist Law is developed
with compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), while the State justice system is
developed with the fear to punishment. This is the cause of the failure of
contemporary civilization in its struggle against crime, because it lacks the
necessary solidarity to provide true justice. In this way, there is an almost
irresolvable gap between both paradigms of justice.
The Free and
Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) understands that he or she is responsible
for the welfare of all beings, reason why he/she dedicates his/her life to the
Liberation of the international community. In this transnational framework, it
is positioned the Maitriyana's restorative justice, criticizing the United
Nations system of world government for lacking ethical authority and compassionate
wisdom (karuna-prajna). The Buddhist Law has a compendium of legal procedures
and mechanisms associated with the endeavors by the spiritual commune (Sangha)
to repair abuses against human dignity, by ensuring justice and reconciliation
(maitri). Therefore,
Maitriyana's ethics committees and conscience tribunals ethically condemn
international crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against
humanity, ecocide and crimes against peace, satisfying the victims thirst for
Truth. Even though the Buddhist Law does not resort to imprisonment, since this
procedure is an incomplete form of justice, certainly
satisfies the need for recognition concerning the crimes occurred in society
through simple and rapid mechanisms that attest the Truth of the facts. This is
a tool for building peace and social justice, as it is a spiritual model of
conflict resolution that lacks justice based on retaliation and revenge. Thus
Maitriyana's restorative justice is based on mercy and solidarity, seeking
Truth and Reconciliation (Maitri), so that it can be applied both to local
conflicts and to cases of massive abuses of human rights, such as has happened
in Sri Lanka and Cambodia. Like
transitional justice, the Buddhist Law responds to impunity or injustice in
cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansings or genocides,
implementing principles of restorative justice through the contemplation (Zen)
of Truth. Only this orientation toward social justice is capable of achieving a
model of society based on peace and justice, by dissipating the causes of
conflict and perceiving enemies as
friends. In effect, the
spiritual master recommends eliminating malevolence and animosity as the main
causes of war, eliminating these evils not through violent force but through
social assistance, such as building schools and hospitals for those with whom
the conflict was established. According to Maitriyana this is the only way in
which, after a war, those who have been defeated will have no resentment
against the victorious or invading nation. Only
through wise and compassionate acts terrorism can be adequately combated, educating or
helping the supposed enemies to change their vision. This healing process,
which is a key in the Buddhist Law, requires courage and willingness on the
part of the international community, even though restorative justice is a
principle established in the very Charter
of the United Nations, where the ideal of dialogue and conciliation is
prioritized instead of violence. In short, for
the Maitriyana, war is an obsolete method for resolving disputes, but even if
this mechanism is used, precautions should be taken to maintain a just peace, respecting the human rights
of those who have been defeated.
The
restorative justice of Buddhist Law is a path
of life that allows the transformation of mind of the individual, repairing the
damage caused by the crime through a consensual resolution. But it is also
sought the transformation of unjust structures of society that influence such
criminal behaviors, producing then the emergence of non-violent societies. These ethical
values of restorative justice are not only employed by the Maitriyana movement,
but have also been practiced by tribal or aboriginal communities for thousands
of years. In fact, the
spiritual commune (sangha) created by Gautama is heiress of this social tradition
of healing justice. While the state
legal system is developed through governmental institutions, the Buddhist Law
is developed through spiritual values. In this way, Maitriyana's restorative or healing justice responds
to harm with compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), considering that problems
are always opportunities to teach those
who have forgotten how to act righteously. This means
that the Buddhist Law not only helps the victim, but also helps the aggressors
to return to their original spiritual nature. In understanding the aggressors
in the context of their relationships, the restorative justice of Maitriyana
does not resort to punishment but has as its Purpose (Dharma) the healing of both the victims and the
aggressors.
The Buddhist
Law emphasizes justice as a quest for non-violence, solidarity, love and
friendship, because it conceives the existence as an interrelated reality. This
supreme form of restorative justice that characterizes Maitriyana deals with
crime and conflict through mediation and reconciliation (maitri), teaching the
society to prevent, participate, take responsibility, repair, reintegrate and
transform, by eliminating the causes of suffering. Obviously, the Buddhist Law
is a paradigm of justice that is alternative to that of the state legal system,
trying to restore as much as possible the relationships affected by a crime or
conflict. However, Maitriyana's restorative justice is not really a new concept, but it has traditionally
been practiced in tribal communities throughout the world for thousands of
years, where
criminals should try to restore the psychological and spiritual well-being of
the victims. These past practices include mediation,
restorative conference, restorative circles, and also the current commissions of Truth, promoting restitution, apologies, and
behavioral changes, which is a
work based on a vision of society as interconnected. The Buddhist
Law develops the libertarian meditation, ethics and compassionate wisdom
(karuna-prajna), which is why it eradicates the causes of suffering that are
attachment, aversion and unconsciousness, teaching the apprentice to live with generosity,
love and clear vision. These values are the only basis on which it is possible
to create a pacifist politics, a just economy, a wise culture and a healthy
environment.
Unlike state
justice, which defines crime as a simple violation of laws and that considers
the State as the victim, instead, the restorative justice of the Maitriyana
considers crime as damage to the social
relations of the individual who is the true victim. Therefore, while in
state justice the State and the criminal are the parties involved in the
process; in Buddhist Law the victim and
the aggressor are the main actors. This juridical paradigm shift implies
stop ignoring the needs and rights of the
victim, who is central in the justice process. But since the
Maitriyana's restorative justice appreciates the interpersonal dimension,
obviously the rights and needs of the aggressor are also respected. In this
way, there is an evolution from a technical and institutional interpretation in
order to arrive at a political, economic and cultural interpretation of
justice. Buddhist Law is then comparable
with the ethical and philosophical values of social action, giving
importance to social relations, having a spirit of service, respecting the
inherent dignity of the human being, behaving with integrity, developing a
specialized knowledge in helping others and challenging poverty and social
injustice.
The Maitriyana
is the heir of two thousand six hundred years of struggle for social justice,
so it has a leading role in providing ethical guidance to the international
community, offering a way that is capable of eradicating both poverty and
crime. This requires an egalitarian procedure which has been defined by Siddhartha
Gautama as Detachment, while John Rawls has called it as the veil of ignorance. The Buddhist
Law is an innovative way to solve social problems by following the highest
ethical ideals, building a peaceful, fair, cultured and healthy world. These principles
that characterize the restorative justice of Maitriyana are the compassionate
wisdom (karuna-prajna) as well as liberty, equality and fraternity. Thus, the
Buddhist Law promotes the transformation and reconstruction of civilization
under the premise of peace, justice, knowledge and ecology. This ethical
orientation toward social action embodies the spiritual quest of the Cure
(Nirvana) of the suffering of all beings with courage and equanimity, so that
combating crime adequately is an axis of the restorative justice of Maitriyana.
In effect, the Buddhist Law is a global movement that affirms that the
justice's punitive approach does not work, because punishing those who violate
laws with imprisonment does not mean teaching or rehabilitating them, nor does
it mean restoring the damage done to the victims. The state or retributive
justice focuses on violently punishing criminals, while restorative or reconciling justice focuses on helping the victims
and curing the causes of crime. Only the restorative
justice that characterizes the Maitriyana can reconcile the victims with the
offenders, transforming both through the power of love.
In accordance
with Foucault, the Buddhist Law states that it is necessary a radical reexamination of the meaning,
motive, means and the receiver of punishment, because
learning to forgive is to use the great potential of adversities to do good
both to oneself and to others. Precisely, the
restorative justice of the Maitriyana carries out this overcoming of state
criminal justice, developing a millennial system based on the assumption of
responsibilities on the part of the criminal and also in satisfying the
victim's needs of reparation. While the Buddhist Law recognizes the inherent
liberty of human being, at the same time it recognizes that society has
negatively influenced the criminal through a political, economic, cultural and
environmental context, so that said criminal must be provided with the
possibility of accessing to a new context of rehabilitation, healing,
transformation and reconciliation (maitri). Obviously, the Maitriyana's
restorative justice is part of the emergence of a new juridical paradigm in the
contemporary world, although it is also heir of a thousand-year-old evolved
legal tradition, for this system has been used by spiritual communities
(sanghas) and Tribal peoples from Africa and Asia. In these
tribal legal systems crime was not seen as an attack against the State but
rather as a violation against Inter-existence or social interrelation.
The Buddhist
Law is characterized by a communitarian ethical attitude, incorporating respect, solidarity and the assumption of responsibility
within a juridical framework. This implies a
warm and loving attitude toward victims, seeking the reconciliation and healing of their emotional wounds instead of
seeking mere financial compensation. In this way,
the procedures of ordinary civil justice are not able to offer this need for genuine emotional connection that the
victim wishes in order to be able to feel mercy and forgive the aggression of
the offender. At the same
time, ordinary criminal justice, by confining the aggressor in prison, annuls
the right of repentance held by the delinquent, placing him/her in an environment where violence is the way to
solve problems, so that it is also nullified his/her right to
transformation, only teaching him/her to return
to the criminal life. On the other hand, in the restorative justice of
Maitriyana the apprentice is encouraged to take responsibility for his/her
actions and consequences, encouraging him/her to do things well and to try to repair the damage done. The view of
Buddhist Law considers ethical judgment not as a violent punishment but as an opportunity for the transformation of the
life of the criminal and the victim's. This alternative method of conflict
resolution - such as peace circles and group conferences - allows the
individual to be able to reintegrate and feel he or she is a member of society
through the right action, which is a
method that reaffirms that what happened was wrong and should be avoided to be
repeated. Maitriyana's ethics committees and conscience tribunals seek to heal
communitarian relations that have been damaged by crime, restoring both victims
and aggressors through dialectical procedures that promote justice and peace.
In accordance with Van Ness, the Buddhist Law proposes three steps of
restorative justice: the encounter (emotional narrative and agreement of
understanding), the amendment (apologies, behavioral change and generous
restitution) and reintegration (respect, material assistance and spiritual
direction). In short,
Maitriyana's juridical practice reveals fundamental ethical values that regard
crime as an opportunity to prevent evil,
doing the good and transform the mind into a path of love and solidarity. Indeed, the
Buddhist Law allows the victims to restore the Truth, incorporating the reality
of crime to their identity, which is the evanescence of revenge and impunity.
The restorative justice of Maitriyana differs from utilitarian justice and
Kantian justice, since its Purpose (Dharma) is not the pursuit of utility or
retribution, but rather a sense of transformation and self-liberation through
Truth. However, for the Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva), as well
as for Foucault, justice implies a mode of resistance
facing the subjectivation modes imposed by the dominant Power, which is evident
in the way how in prison the human being is pigeonholed as if the crime
committed were about his/her true identity. The Buddhist Law encourages the
criminal to become an apprentice and seek his/her true sense or Purpose
(Dharma), teaching him/her the possibility of re-creating himself in the context of transformative practices. This new legal discourse proposed by Maitriyana
is the Analytical-Existential-Libertarian Discourse (Buddha-Dharma-Sangha),
teaching the society to pay full attention (Mindfulness) to the emergence or
vital necessity of a new legal practice
where cooperation and dialogue are privileged rather than domination and
rhetoric. The Buddhist
Law seeks to completely transform and displace
the current legal system. Therefore, this juridical revolution of Maitriyana is rather about a dynamic evolution, opening the way to new conditions of possibility of Law. Even from the
perspective of the spiritual master, restorative
justice will eventually show its own weaknesses, allowing the future
society to make a new evolution, since nothing
is permanent.
The Buddhist
Law establishes that the state legal system is not only imperfect but also
defective; frequently making the victims
feel that they are ignored by prosecutors and judges. The Free and
Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) does not consider that the current legal
system is fair and effective at the time
of combating crime, reason why the restorative justice of Maitriyana proposes
the emergence of a new paradigm of justice. This paradigm embodied by the
Buddhist Law promotes a meeting space for reparation and reconciliation
(maitri) between victims and aggressors, providing the opportunity to heal
individual and communitarian wounds, which is the best method of preventing
recidivism of crime. Indeed, the Maitriyana provides a new scheme that
redefines punitive and dissuasive punishment, teaching how to rehabilitate and
transform the social response to crime. Thus, the Buddhist Law criticizes the
deficiencies of criminal justice for providing an insignificant role to the
vision of the victims of crime, at the same
time it is denounced as a structurally inefficient,
ineffective legal system that is incapable of being just and equitable. The Maitriyana's restorative justice allows
prioritizing the victim's interests within the practices of legal system, while
proposing a new mode of response and prevention in the face of crime, since imprisonment
is exactly the opposite of the search
for self-control and rehabilitation of the criminal: his/her dehumanization
through the virtue of violence to resolve conflicts. Certainly the spiritual
master teaches the criminal to be in charge of his/her life legitimately and peacefully facing frustration
(dukkha), teaching him/her to regain a sense
of respect both for himself and for the others. The Buddhist
Law states that prisons should be educational
institutions that prepare criminals to carry out a righteous life. But
given the high level of recidivism in crime, the current penal legal system
reveals that prisons are really a place to worsen the subject's psychic
situation. Although the legal system should
satisfy the appearance of justice, as a basis for
its legitimacy, only a small percentage of the population perceives the penal
system as very just, reason why the
Maitriyana seeks the implementation of restorative justice as promotion of reparation, reconciliation and tranquility
between the victim, the aggressor and the community. Therefore, the
procedures of Buddhist Law are not controlled by soulless professionals, but by the same affected community, even by
allowing the accused ones to participate actively in the proceedings and to experience
the consequences of their actions in order to try to repair them but without
endangering the emotional integrity of the victims. The Purpose (Dharma) of
Maitriyana's restorative justice is the just
restoration of the victims, delinquents and communities, reason by
which these programs produce very low recidivism in crime. The criminal legal
system is not only ineffective for not incorporating the voice of the victims,
but also for producing an enormous amount of bureaucratic steps that require a
great monetary cost for society. At the same time that Buddhist Law reduces
crime with great efficiency, it is an alternative paradigm of low cost, not
only because it reduces enormously the amount of procedures and times of the
judicial courts, but also because it offers a mechanism of punishment that is
different from that of imprisonment, since the latter is just one of many forms
of punishment. Indeed, the Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva)
confirms that the harm and limitation of the criminal's freedom is neither the only way in which justice can be done
nor the only way in which society can
disapprove criminal conduct. Thus, the
Maitriyana reveals that the psychological rehabilitation of the criminal along
with the compensation of the victim is a form of constructive punishment very different from the penitentiary
criminal paradigm. Therefore, the Buddhist Law is actually an alternative to
criminal punishment but also an alternative
form of ethical punishment that spiritually condemns individual, corporate
or governmental conduct. In fact, ethical or non-violent punishment is an indispensable aspect of the restorative
justice of Maitriyana, stating that
the incarceration paradigm is a stereotyped form of punishment. Instead,
confronting the criminal peacefully in order that he or she apologizes and
attempts to mend the harm done proves to be the healthiest and most adequate
form of punishment. By not associating punishment
with imprisonment the Buddhist Law
can pass through the ethics of the Middle Way without resorting to the extremes
of violence and condescension, working in the construction of a sort of
punishment that amends the suffering
of the victims. In short, the
Maitriyana considers that punishment for criminals should be used not because
they deserve it, but rather to increase social welfare. In this way, the
spiritual master teaches to perceive that a criminal is not a bad person, but is rather someone who
has committed a bad act, demonstrating
simultaneously that there are no Free and Enlightened Beings
(Arhats-Bodhisattvas) but rather there are free
and enlightened acts. This insubstantializing attitude considers that the
human being is what he or she does, so if he or she stops doing evil and begins to do good, then he or she can purify his/her mind and reach the
transformation and Awakening (Bodhi) to Truth. Just like raising a child, this
attitude of the Buddhist Law allows disciplining in a way that demonstrates
disapproval of bad behavior and simultaneously demonstrates its solidarity and
respect. In this sense,
Maitriyana's ethics committees and conscience tribunals encourage the criminal
to take responsibility for his/her actions and to apologize publicly, starting
the first step towards the slow and arduous rehabilitation. This implies that
Buddhist Law regards its procedures as therapeutic
courts where the human being can abandon the repetition (karma) of his/her
criminal acts and begin to identify with the vision of others, especially with
the feelings of victims. In the Maitriyana the goal of restorative justice is
then the Cure (Nirvana) of the psychic illness of the criminal and also is the
Reconciliation (Maitri) with his/her victim, who needs healing from his/her
wounds through love. The punitive condemnation is not the dominant aim of the Law, but it is the reform and rehabilitation of criminals. Therefore, the
Buddhist Law is a legal system with integrity and compassionate wisdom
(karuna-prajna).
In conclusion, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has
the Purpose (Dharma) to guide the peoples of the world through righteousness
and the Supreme Law, which implies a direct criticism of those ineffective
Courts violating their own duty of Justice. Therefore, it is established that
the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS (IACHR) is violating the rights of the Buddhist Peoples and the
Spiritual Communities, especially violating their individual and collective
tribal rights. Undoubtedly, the international courts should be regulating the
States so that the local tribunals do not violate the fundamental rights,
providing a model of fast and effective restorative justice. Without a
Humanitarian Purpose, the international Courts become bureaucrats and
insensitive to the suffering of the victims, contributing to the perversion of
justice instead of contributing to its Cure. Only by practicing the Path of
Restorative Justice, as prescribed by Master Gautama and many contemporary
jurists, the international courts will be able to function effectively and
respect fundamental rights, understanding at all times that injustice is one of
the principal ills of the world. In this way, the Case on the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(IACHR) is a great teaching for national and international courts,
perfectly proving that if the Courts do not allow simple, fast and effective
resources for citizenship to have justice, then Courts are unjust and contrary
to solidarity and Truth. The Courts have a duty to be faithful to the supreme
human rights to peace and justice, because if they function in a bureaucratic
way they become oppressive instruments and are contrary to the intrinsic
dignity of the human being.
It is also put on record the fact
that during the last two years, the INTER-AMERICAN
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has done absolutely nothing to resolve
the framework of impunity in Argentina, where millions of people haven't had
adequate access to justice, so that a framework of systemic corruption that
oppresses society prevails. Within these millions of victims who have been
deprived of accessing to justice it can be found not only the Buddhist Temple World Association of Buddhism but also
the prosecutor Nisman, who was not only murdered with total impunity but, in
addition, the Argentine government participated actively in covering-up of said
homicide. Faced with this very serious situation, the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) never sought to
sanction the Argentine State.
Following the Path of Master
Gautama, who developed a communal and international legal framework, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights
oversees that national and international courts are righteous, fair and
ethical, never betraying the fundamental rights, so that the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
(IACHR) has therefore been sentenced as "Responsible" for the VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF
BUDDHIST PEOPLES AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES.
With a spirit of reconciliation
(maitri),
Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha
President and Spiritual Judge of
the International Buddhist Ethics
Committe (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal
on Human Rights (BTHR)
Daniel Van Ness, The
Shape of Things to Come: A Framework to think about a Restorative Justice
System.
James Blumenthal, Toward A Buddhist
Theory of Justice.
Michel Foucault, Interview with Actes, in Power
394, 398-99 (The New Press 2000).
John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice &
Responsive Regulation 3 (Oxford University Press 2002).
Michael L. Hadley, The Spiritual Roots of
Restorative Justice.
Frank D. Hill, Restorative
Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.
Frank D. Hill, Restorative
Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.
Frank D. Hill, Restorative
Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.
Frank D. Hill, Restorative
Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.
Frank D. Hill, Restorative
Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.
