The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023 to Tuesday May 30, 2023. In order for the proposed amendments to be considered during the 76th World Health Assembly, they must be submitted to the World Health Organization at least 4 months in advance. The IHRRC plans to submit these proposed amendments to the WHO by Sunday, January 15, 2023.
The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations. According to the already agreed upon rules of the IHR, if the proposed amendments are adopted, the member nations would not need to take any additional actions. The United States Senate would not be required to provide a two-thirds vote to give their “advice and consent.” No signatures by national leaders would be needed.
I support the following OPEN LETTER by Interest of Justice:
Notice and Demand to stop IHR Amendments
Our organization Interest of Justice is considered “relevant” and “interested” stakeholder by the INB, which they say in this context includes non-State actors with a demonstrable interest in pandemic preparedness and responses, such as: international organizations; civil society organizations; private sector organizations; philanthropic organizations; scientific, medical and public policy institutions; academic institutions; and other such entities that have relevant knowledge, experience and/or expertise related to pandemic preparedness and response to share.
We claim our organization is being excluded by the WHO and as a result we are being denied our right to communicate with international organizations as we are asserting our responsibility, duty and obligation to defend human rights.
On the basis of our mandate, mission and responsibility, we wish to point out the following
It has come to our attention there are certain ideas & proposals to amend the IHR circulating within the World Health Organisation:
The proposed amendments would:
1. Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1). This would create an unacceptable imbalance of power detrimental to health.
2. Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.”
3. Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” which are legally significant words, and supplant them with arbitrary unilaterally defined words that may conflict with member states definitions and health policy in violation of Article 3(4) (Article 3)
4. Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A). This is unsustainable and slavery of member states which slavery is legally defined as “being under the will of another”
5. Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18).
6. Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6, 7 and 8)
7. Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
8. Allow the disclosure of personal health data. (Article 45)
9. Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they unilaterally consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36) It cannot be overstated that the ‘Trusted News Initiative’ and UN’s ‘program to combat misinformation and roumers’ are not in conformity with law and as applied ubiquitously worldwide, is a clear overreach and violation of the UN charter and international Human Rights norms. The use of the term “in conformity with the law” in Article 21 of the ICCPR, should not be interpreted to imply any lower standard of legality for limitations on the right of peaceful assembly than other limitations within the ICCPR. It should be the same standard that applies to interpreting the language of “provided by law” within Article 19 of the ICCPR, as elaborated in the Committee’s General Comment No. 34: “For the purposes of paragraph 3, a norm, to be characterized as a “law”, must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly and it must be made accessible to the public. A law may not confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution. Laws must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not.” The laws regarding ‘health misinformation’ do not describe what exact speech is defined as health misinformation, in order to: a) be able to challenge the validity of the science and law to know if its really true or false misinformation (with a final res judicata judgment) and b) to give due process to the people that WHO is applying global censorship to. As a result, the WHO-UN global censorship programs (‘Trusted News Initiative’ and UN’s ‘program to combat misinformation and roumers’) that indisputably confers unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution is in violation of the legal order and absolutely null. Importantly, the creation and execution of the global UN-WHO ‘Trusted News Initiative’ and UN’s ‘program to combat misinformation and roumers’ should ultimately be determined to systematically deny human rights which is a national security threat in all nations.  HR Committee, General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression, CCPR/C/GC/ 34, 12 September 2011; at para. 25. Conclusion: The persecution and censorship of scientific debate and even peer reviewed studies being suppressed by the WHO is a systematic denial of the human right to equal treatment by design which is reinforcing a grave systemic violation of human rights, which is a vice or defect that negates the very motive, content and purpose for WHO’s existence.We assert the IHR cannot be legitimately amended to expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they unilaterally consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36).
10. Create an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)
The amendments to Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6, 7 and 8 would create unprecidented intrusion into liberty and fundamental freedoms, human rights and autonomy.The contact tracing and vaccine passport schemes interfere with privacy and dignity, therefore, adopting these unnecessary, overly burdensome, disproportunate, unreasonable and tyrannical policies is tantamount to internationally wrongful acts and under the mandate of our organization they must not be allowed.
Removing respect for dignity human rights infernal freedoms is a grave error for the world health organisation because it is impossible for you to do so this and stay within your legal limits of authority.
Even the mere suggestion and attempt to remove respect for dignity and human rights violates your own stated mission in the WHO constitution and UN Charter.
No international public servant in your position has the right or authority to negotiate, propose or enact any of the aforesaid detrimental policies.
This open letter is to demand that you adhere to your duties and responsibilities, and a drawn from applying any further attempts to subvert the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of all of the people of earth.
Furthermore, we demand that you abstain from your monopolistic attempts to subvert nationstate sovereign health policy by creating wiggle instruments and definitions which may conflict with national health policy intention is the use of unilaterally draft in terms of art and coercion of member states to agree exceeds the authority granted to the international public servants that work at the world health organisation.
It is our understanding that you have met in secret all week in order to negotiate these spurious amendments to the HR with the intention to propose the final draft on Sunday, January 15, 2023.
On, and for the record, this is a formal protest and objection of all secret negotiations to design global public health policy by interest of justice.We are acting on our own behalf, and on behalf of, the international community, as conscientious objectors who are also stakeholders as recognised by the IMB with an interest in pandemic, preparedness and response.
We have written many times to meaningfully participate in the design of the pandemic treaty and IHR Amendmemts. We have demanded to be included on Annex E of the treaty negotiations, with no response.Our organization, as well as its vulnerable primary stakeholder members are treated with contempt and marginalized by the WHO, through non feasance, denying us right to meaningfully participate and communicate with the WHO in the design of all health policy which may affect us, including these proposed IHR amendments.
It is in the WHO’s best interest to prevent any IHR Amendments which would remove respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, or allow for vaccine or climate passports, precisely because the WHO will be exceeding granted authority, breaching human rights obligations and clearly interferring with commerce which implies waiving sovereign immunity and accepting responsibility for serious breaches of internationally wrongful acts.
Under our mandate to hold you responsible and in compliance with international law and internal regulations, we demand that any intention to cooperate with any of the aforementioned efforts will be considered in strict violation of international law, and you will be held accountable for such acts.
We do not accept the WHO’s illigitimate authority in this matter because they are clearly attempting to change customary law and just cogens norms do not allow this unnecessary oppression and disrespect to the balance of rule of law, dignity of man and human rights norms. The proposals if enacted pose a serious threat by disrespect to the fundamental freedoms of man.
Frankly, the vaccine passports and other undignified propsals are obscene, outrageous and unconscionable, as well as void.
We demand the INB, IHRRC, WGIHR, WHO and favored stakeholders that are invited to participate in these secret negotiations stay within their legal and moral limits.This means the international law and WHO’s prior obligations to protect respect for human rights requires that you do not amend the IHR in such fundamental ways, at this time, without meaningful public participation and lenthy debate, first proving the necessity, proportionality and legality.
It is important to note that under international law and the WHO constitution, at no time will it ever be acceptable to cross out respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms in the IHR or a treaty.
In our opinion, it reflects very badly upon the WHO, the mere suggestion that this idea was even entertained, and negotiated in secret.Judging by the public response the WHO has lost a lot of credibility with this outragous attempt to oppress people using international legal instruments to increase power not conferred by law, and to use as a weapon to strip humanity of dignity.
Interest of Justice not only protests and objects to the secret negotiations and spurious proposed IHR amendments, we condemn them as internationally wrongful acts which the WHO is responsible for, if actually proposed and adopted.
The proposed changes to the first principle in Article 3 of the International Health Regulations is in stark opposition to the jus cogens peremptory norms of international human rights law. If adopted, they would unreasonably strike out the following well defined legally significant text:
“with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”
The verbiage used in treaties to protect human rights would be removed, allowing for the violation of Siracusa Principles and other limits of power. Furthermore, the new text would exchange well defined legally significant human rights verbiage that is enforceable for people to protect their rights and replace these protections with undefined words that are void for vagueness and exchanging the superior human rights laws and verbiage for these terms could recklessly and needlessly lead to a situation of ambiguity that could strip the people of standard human rights protections.
The proposed amendments to the IHR text is much worse than before and serves no benefit.