Absence of Impartiality in UN Internal Justice

Absence of Impartiality in UN Internal JusticeThis is a copy of my messages sent to the SG and UNAT Judges which –for sure– was either classified or sent to the shredders (as usual).

In order to avoid embarrassment the UNAT Judges keep dismissing and ignoring my submitted requests containing justifications and proves that refutes my fabricated charges in order not to admit that their initial decision was wrongly made, also to avoid involving the person(s) who forces them to violate their own statute and rules of procedures to take such wrong decision destroying the career and the life of a UN staff after 24 years of services.

I am certain that my message sent to the Secretary-General never reached him for specific reasons, while my message to UNAT was sent or to the shredders or filed in my classified case.

If there is impartial justice in this world my case should be reconsidered I am ready to face all UNAT Judges to defend my case my self because my innocence is like my sward in my hand and the true is a true whether we like it or not especially that the law is over everybody without any exception.

I am calling for justice and will not stop until I will get it because it my acquired right.

Copy of the SG’s message:
====================
No one can change another person, but a person may be the reason for why somebody changes.

Piraeus July 02, 2013

Secretary-General
Mr. Ban Ki-moon,
Fax Number: (212) 963-2155

His Excellency Mr. Secretary General,

I am really embarrassed that my insistence become a nuisance to you, but what else can I do at this time to redeem my name and my reputation and be able to take charge of my life after so many years of suffering. Who else than the SG will hear from victims who might have experienced a situation in which access to the UN system of administration of justice was needed? I couldn’t find any “UN Body” within the accessible system to me that I could get them to talk to me or to listen to my complaints, frustrations and appeals or to report the “misconduct” by some members of the panel.

After the reforms of the Internal Justice System I was very impressed about the declared objectives and activities, which are “The protection of an individual’s rights is of high priority and deserves effective attention”. REGRETTABLY, it turns out that in fact the UN justice system lacks any due process, rule of law, transparency and is far from being close to perform fair justice, although this ”justice system” have been reformed, but the jury is still out as to whether it meets the minimum standards of due process and human rights required by applicable international law, particularly because of its similarity to the old system.

Your Excellency, the biggest embarrassment for you which offends to the discretionary authority given to you by the Security Council is that all of these abuses and violations are done by some Officials and staff of the United Nations who are basically the principle advocate to the basic Fundamental Rights, Due Process, Rule of Law, Transparency and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN Officials are failing to realize that ”torture” can be in many shapes and forms and it has been practiced within the UN with impunity.

I have been seriously wronged and summary dismissed by the UN system. I lost everything by being treated as the worst form of criminal, who was thrown to the mercy of unscrupulous individuals, survived insurmountable hardship, encountered several hurdles while defending my name against a phantom system that is empowered with immunity and enjoys a supreme power and influence yet take pride in promoting the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Obviously, it is the “lack of accountability” that encourages abuse while performing justice which serves specific agendas.

Since they are obliged to give clear and explicit reason, UNAT decided not to clear my name, it’s an attempt not to admit their injustice and hide their failure to observe the standard care due, while violating basic Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights in 1999 expressly held that an international organization that enjoyed immunity from national laws and courts must provide persons it has injured or its employees a reasonably equivalent legal system to that available to claimants in national court systems, if they didn’t, the subject immunity violated Articles 6 (due process) and 13 (adequate remedies) of the European Convention on Human Rights, IT IS CONTRARY to the views of senior UN officials and national politicians, a person’s individual civil (or human) rights cannot be subordinated to the UN and its immunity, the UN’s immunity is based on the condition that the UN provides an alternative system of dispute resolution (Article 29 of the General Convention on UN Privileges and Immunities).

>>> I am a citizen of the EU not a resident of the United States, but my case have been treated, processed within the US territory (i.e. New York), legally, the UN’s immunity violates an injured party’s fundamental rights under the First, Fifth, Seventh & Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which will forces me to seek the consultation and the assistance of “The US Federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York” to consider my case based on the adopted formal laws.

Although the route to a remedy is not clear or guaranteed in my case, but the more I pursue my claims in the applicable favorable venue, the more I can brought it forward, the more it can get the media attention and the sooner the impunity exercised without fear of retribution or accountability by so many of its officials against its own staff and innocent 3rd parties like me, will come to an end.

You Excellency, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, I am confident that this message together with the previous ones should get your proper attention and consideration so as to achieve fair justice, it is worth giving a last chance to reconsider the review of my case impartially, I am sure I deserves your support in this matter.

Respectfully,

MASRI, Abdul Karim A.

Cc: – Under S-G / Legal Counsel, Mrs. Patricia O’Brien, Fax (212) 963-6430
      – O.A.J, Executive Director, Mrs. Linda Taylor, Fax (917) 367-4322, taylor17@un.org
________________________________________________________________________

Copy of the UNAT message
======================

Piraeus July 16, 2013

Honorable Judges Luis Maria Simón (President)
Judge Mary Faherty and Judge Jean Courtial

As I have indicated previously “Trials require the skills of a lawyer and experience in the courtroom. Appeals involve a large amount of writing and legal research, as well as the ability to argue legal doctrines before a judge. Unfortunately I do not have these characteristics but I tried my best of my knowledge to submit this presentation in a commensurate way with the esteemed court.

There was no indication that my cross-appeal was included with the cases considered for UNAT review during its summer session. Based on “Article 9(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Appeals Tribunal” this cross-appeal was properly submitted via e-filing portal on 14 May 2013. It should be noted that the justification sent to me by the Registrar in May 2013 does not negate or eliminates the legitimacy of my cross-appeal submitted under Article 9 (4) and excluded it this way.

Honorable judges, with all my due respect it is necessary to clarify this specific issue:
Immediately after its submission the Registrar notified me that my cross-appeal is not receivable. In fact, this is one of his basic responsibilities (article 21, UNAT Rules of Procedures). If my initial Request for Review 2012-UNAT-290 was really time-barred as it was announced in the judgment 2013-UNAT-320 he should have taken the same procedure upon he received it exactly as he did with my cross-appeal, or later {Article 21 (a, b)} but actually it was forwarded “formally” to the SG’s counsel who in his turn have consider it and submitted his response!.

Assuming that Mr. Lin is not a legal specialist! Mr. Stompor (who’s one of the famous lawyers) could have pick up this significant point! But he did not even mentioned in his response. This confirms its legitimacy and its eligibility when submitted

In some appeals the court must provide a ”substantial evidence” to overturn a decision, standard of review shall be made over factual findings. The final judge’s verdict must be supported by ”substantial evidence”, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support such a conclusion. The preponderance of the evidence is the standard required in most courts. This is also the standard of proof used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true. This is also the standard of proof used when determining eligibility of benefits for former employees accused of losing their job through alleged misconduct. The employer must prove this case based on preponderance of the evidence. ”Clear and Convincing Evidence”;

Honorable judges, definitely at the end of the day you affirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights. Since certainty is the word that determines such rigorous decisions supported by the rules adopted by the US Supreme Court you are kindly requested to reconsider my cross-appeal or my initial Request for Review 2012-UNAT-290 in accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms .

I am confident that my present request will get your kind attention and open the opportunity for a fair compromise leading to an impartial justice.

Respectfully,

MASRI, Abdul Karim A.

Cc:

– Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, Fax (212) 963-2155
– Ms.Antigoini Axenidou, Director Legal Division), Fax (212) 963-5348

For the Under S-G / Legal Counsel, Mrs. Patricia O’Brien
– O.A.J, Executive Director, Mrs. Linda Taylor, Fax (917) 367-4322, taylor17@un.org

 

I believe that my above message didn’t cross the red line as I have only requested my rights, any comment regarding any mistake I have made will be welcomed. Waiting for advise or comments from whoever feels he can make any changes.

Abdul Karim Antoine Masri

Copyright © 2013 • UN Post • All Rights Reserved

One Reply to “Absence of Impartiality in UN Internal Justice”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *