BBC News - Libya country profile: "Libya, once shunned by much of the international community over the 1988 bombing of a PanAm plane above the Scottish town of Lockerbie, has undergone a dramatic rehabilitation.
Tripoli formally took responsibility for the incident in 2003. The move, part of a deal to compensate families of the 270 victims, heralded the lifting of UN sanctions."
sharing this to every lead I can find for the Libyan opposition.
ReplyDeleteStarting in Europe, extending to practically every country through legal disputes that overlap countries, there is an advance in democracy concerning preventing corrupt decisions getting declared final. This "court change" has been hushed up by the media in the democratic world, ignored across politics, for 12 years.
THE COURT CHANGE INCLUDING IN LIBYA: Since 7 July 1999 in Europe, all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".
Despite the media silence, this is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. As well there are many internet postings of this message.
The court change follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.
Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.
The rest of my message, after 10 minutes wasted on messages of "Your HTML cannot be accepted. Must be at most 4096 characters" even when I had counted it to well under 4096.
ReplyDeleteThis requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.
The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.
When a case overlaps a court change country and an unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes court change, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.
So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of countries outside the Council of Europe whose people can lay claim to the court change as an advance in democracy. It is worth listing, while awaiting their freer futures, as well as democracies.
The court change reached Libya, and Syria and Iran, through the Lockerbie bomb trial. This is by reason of the case's content, nothing to do with who was guilty. But it may not the most diplomatic of cases to quote, though surrounding an overthrow of Gaddafi it may be popular to quote it. Anyway, an alternative case to cite for Libya is the present issue over Western arms deals with Gaddafi and OHCHR tyring to stop them getting used in the regime's murders. This legal issue extends the court change to Libya.