At a seminar on live organ harvesting by the Chinese Communist Party, Sir Geoffrey Nice, who presided over the Independent People’s Tribunal, described the operation of the Tribunal.
“There is no doubt that we can conclude with complete certainty that forced organ harvesting, Crimes Against Humanity, and mass extermination exist. These can be seen in the short and full verdict.” At a February 24 seminar on “Live Organ Harvesting in China,” Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who presided over the Independent People’s Tribunal on Live Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China (the People’s Tribunal), described the history and operation of the People’s Tribunal and reiterated He said that the crime of “live organ harvesting” is a threat to all humanity and that it is our responsibility to correct it.
Sir Ness is widely respected in the legal profession
Sir Nis, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal’s prosecution of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, is widely respected in legal circles. He emphasizes that no personal opinions or views can be expressed on these (live organ harvesting) issues related to China, but rather the evidence and facts speak for themselves. To date, no one has refuted or challenged the details of the court’s decision since it was first announced.
“None of us knew about the forced organ harvesting until we started this work. We were just citizens answering questions.”
“I hope we are just being sensible and coming to factual and legal conclusions.” “Even though there are lawmakers among us, we don’t go and say what the law is, we wait to hear it from the outside, like a jury, and we make our own verdict. We are not responsible for making recommendations or pointing out what others should do, otherwise it would be well beyond the scope of our duties.”
Educational institutions, businesses, travel companies, and all sorts of other institutions that deal with China must take this judgment of ours into account, Sir Ness said. But basically, all we do is provide judgment and supply it to others.
The People’s Tribunal’s judgment is widely used
On June 18, 2019, the Independent People’s Tribunal on Live Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China, after months of investigation, pronounced in London: “The members of the Tribunal are unanimously convinced beyond reasonable doubt that live organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China (the Chinese Communist Party) has been carried out on a large scale for many years, involving a large number of victims.”
The tribunal’s decisions are now widely used by many governments, parliaments, international organizations and others around the world, and are also used as the basis for legislation in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The Tribunal’s Judgments Based on Evidence and Facts
The Tribunal held five days of public hearings on December 8-10, 2018, and April 6-7, 2019, where it investigated, took evidence, and questioned more than 50 fact witnesses, experts, investigators, and analysts, and considered the evidence in a variety of formats to reach a unanimous conclusion.
About five years ago, human rights activist Ben Rogers wanted Sir Ness to write a legal opinion on the issue of live organ harvesting by the Chinese Communist Party, which led Sir Ness to The People’s Tribunal. He said people such as Professor Wendy Rogers or David Matas eventually decided they wanted a People’s Tribunal because some countries were preening that “we weren’t quite sure the evidence was sufficient” to show they were justified in doing nothing. “So this tribunal was set up,” says Sir Ness.
“I want the tribunal to be like a jury. Those who serve as jurors in a criminal or civil trial, they are a group of citizens who come to answer questions. (We) tell them at the beginning, don’t make any assumptions, start with a blank sheet of paper and add the evidence in.”
Sir Nees said that although David Matas, David Kilgour and Ethan Gutmann have come to very strong conclusions about live organ harvesting by the Chinese Communist Party, “we are not interested in their views. Of course, we’ll look at the evidence on which they base their views, and we’ll look at all the other evidence. We will try to find out where the Chinese (Communist) state stands and work from a blank sheet of paper. Nothing but evidence.”
“So far, one thing is clear: a group of non-activist citizens with no agenda, no background or preconceived notions, just need to deal with the evidence provided to them, and they have the right to ask for other evidence for further verification, but basically, they just deal with the evidence, just read the individual questions and submit the answers in the form of judgments. And you know what? It’s very difficult for anyone to challenge the judgment that they make. Especially, with this judgment, all the reasoning of the average citizen is visible. I don’t think that within (the last) year and a half or two years, from the Time the verdict was first announced until now, anyone has rebutted or challenged its details.”
A major post-World War II crime, “live organ harvesting” is a threat to all of humanity
The judgment, Sir Nigel explained, is one that many equal people have received together, and one that many individual citizens have received. This judgment is available to all citizens of the world. Because this is not an individual case, but a major crime after the Second World War, because the trend of internationalization, globalization, may make such crimes again a threat to all humanity.
When the Declaration of Human Rights was issued in 1948, people knew that rights were universal,” he said. If rights are universal, then responsibilities are also universal. They are not just the responsibility of the government, they are the responsibility of the people.”
He argued that if a group of people are found to be fundamentally violating their rights, then that violation is relevant to us all and we have a responsibility to put it right.
He also said that “live organ harvesting” is still happening in China, beyond what was stated in the independent tribunal’s verdict published earlier last year.
Recent Comments