Human Rights Court for Social Justicereignoftheheavens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GRANTS-Prospectus-ACIJ-2014.pdfGRANTS PROSPECTUS Human Rights Court for Social Justice Non-Profit

1

GRANTS PROSPECTUSHuman Rights Court for Social Justice

Non-Profit Missions & Effective Use of Funds

August 2014

When You Have No Rights, Nothing Else Matters

Human rights is about much more thanisolated war crimes or political prisonersin far-away lands, and is the foundation ofmore aspects of our daily lives than weare led to believe:

Economic rights are also human rights,including the right to practice one’sprofession, to earn a living, and to benefitfrom the fruits of one’s labour. Civil rightsand constitutional rights are also humanrights, including the right to own privateproperty, to the establishment andintegrity of family, to privacy and securityin one’s home life and personal affairs,the right not to be persecuted for one’sopinions and beliefs, freedom of speechand information, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and the right to real andmeaningful access to justice.

All other humanitarian causes, including educational needs, medical needs, poverty andmany other forms of suffering, are ultimately symptoms of underlying violations of humanrights and freedoms.

No other charitable causes can be addressed with any real effect or lasting impact, unless anduntil the deeper level of necessary human rights can be restored and protected.

Therefore, the full enforcement of human rights under international law is itself the ultimatehumanitarian cause, which is of supreme practical importance, as the essential key to all othercharitable causes.

1



August 2014







1



August 2014







2

Mainstream advocacy for human rights has traditionally focused almost exclusively upon isolatedsmall-scale violations in developing countries, thus primarily serving as a distraction to deflectattention away from flagrant and widespread violations by dominant countries. However, localviolations in small countries are almost always mere side-effects or byproducts of massive, large-scale, and much more serious violations which are routinely committed by even the largestcountries.

As a result, typically, dominant countries artificially portray themselves as morally superior byvilifying smaller countries for the symptoms of their own violations of destabilizing or corruptingthose countries. Meanwhile, while public attention is misdirected by the blame-shifting tactic,those dominant countries continue an aggressive public policy of pervasively abolishing the mostfundamental human rights in all countries, even against their own citizens in their own territory.

In the modern era, governments and globalist banking interests have relentlessly and increasinglybeen systematically dismantling all economic, civil and constitutional rights, causing massviolations of human rights worldwide.

Covering up this looming humanitarian catastrophe of global totalitarian oppression, persistentpropaganda in mainstream media is used to artificially maintain the superficial illusion that we stillhave “rights” which have already been quietly revoked or subverted. However, “rights” are notrights if the government can arbitrarily take them away, precisely when you need them the most tosave your life, your family and your liberty.

When you have no basic human rightsand fundamental freedoms, literally“nothing else matters”.

Without the right to disagree with thegovernment, no abuses of power canever be opposed. Without the freedom toreceive and use funds for lawful purposeswithout interference, no civil societyadvocacy or non-profit humanitarianactivities can ever be pursued. Withoutour essential human rights, no othersocial cause can ever be advanced.

Therefore, human rights is truly theultimate humanitarian cause, which allother charitable causes inevitably dependupon as the essential empoweringprecondition to any and all other forms ofsocial justice.

2








2








3

Historic Human Rights Movement of Global Impact

The solution to restoring and advancinghuman rights has already been given tous, by great world leaders of the past,from a time when leaders still representedthe interests of the people. The past 70years of international law has alreadyestablished codified fundamental humanrights and freedoms which are fullybinding upon – and enforceable against –all countries.

The various national laws and globalisttreaties which increasingly undermine andviolate these rights are illegal and invalidas violations of international law.

Unfortunately, the majority of international laws, which guarantee diverse human rights, havenever actually been enforced by any official body, and have thus remained unused – until now.

Only international Courts can enforce international law to defend human rights against violationsby countries, or by multinational institutions furthering the destructive policies of governments.

However, access to justice has been mostly denied, undermined by control through funding:

If the UN funds a Court, it becomes limited by restrictions imposed by the few countries whichdominate the UN. When countries fund a Court established by treaty, it becomes severely limitedto maintain practical impunity for those countries.

The only way for a real international Court to provide meaningful access to justice for thepeople, is to be funded by the people, through grass-roots and private non-profitdonations.

In the current system, the restrictions of treaty-based courts mostly allow only countries to sueother countries, allow countries to refuse to consent to jurisdiction, and allow countries to limitwhat types of claims the Court will accept. The very narrow exceptions, which only sometimesallow victims to sue for violations, generally require “exhausting all levels” of domestic courts,which only serves to bankrupt the victims or deny access to Justice entirely.

Fortunately, while the treaty approach is one way to establish an international Court, that is not theonly way. International law already provides direct statutory authority for a truly independent Courtof Justice, without need for any treaty, thus avoiding the influence of the UN or any country.

Ignita Veritas University (IVU) has already obtained a governmental license to operate an officialCourt of Justice, authorized to independently enforce international law, with full judiciaryautonomy. This new judiciary institution is the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ).

The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is a historic accomplishment andmajor advancement in international law, as the “next generation” in cutting-edge evolutionof human rights law, for the following noteworthy, ground-breaking reasons:

4

ACIJ is the first human rights Court in history to be based upon statutory authority, firmlyrooted in long-established provisions of codified international law;

ACIJ is the first international Court to operate entirely from pre-existing international lawswhich are already binding upon all UN member countries;

ACIJ is the first Court which can lawfully assert universal jurisdiction over all countries,without any requirement for “recognition” nor “consent” by any country;

ACIJ is the first Court positioned to fully utilize international laws which strictly require allcountries to honour and implement its binding and enforceable judgments;

ACIJ is the first Court of official capacity and licensed authority which is simultaneously freefrom influence of the UN or any country, making the Court truly free to fully represent thelegal human rights and freedoms of all people worldwide;

ACIJ is the first Court allowing all individual or private victims of human rights violations,from all countries, to sue violators and governments in all countries, on any and all casesconcerning international law;

ACIJ is the first international Court of “first instance”, giving victims access to Justice whenintervention and remedies are needed most, not decades later after victims are furtherdevastated by artificial political and economic barriers to Justice.

ACIJ is the first international Court in history to have its own official institutionalenforcement operations, for the Court to proactively work to achieve real-world enforcementof its judgments, not leaving plaintiffs to battle governments to uphold their judgments.

Now, it is up to “we the people” to fund the first international Court in history to finally trulyrepresent and enforce human rights by the people, and for the people, worldwide.

As the first truly international Court with full judiciary autonomy to uphold the rights of all peoples,ACIJ inherently carries massive global impact for social justice. The fact of its very existencealone serves to raise awareness, attract attention, and change outdated paradigms of humanrights and international law. Its active operations will further set an example, by leadership, for thelegal profession and the judiciary worldwide, thereby raising the standards for Justice itself.

The conceptual model of ACIJ serves to educate lawyers, judges and human rights organizationsaround the world. It teaches and promotes a new and already growing consensus in the legal andjudiciary professions, that the most powerful provisions of established international law have neverbeen properly used. This results in an unprecedented leadership role for the ACIJ, carryingongoing impact for social justice, by showing the world that there is a genuine Rule of Law, withhuman rights that can be effectively enforced, universally, for all people.

IVU has also obtained international licenses as a university educational institution and academicaccrediting body. This puts IVU in a powerful position to additionally support human rights througheducating judges and lawyers internationally, giving them professional academic tools toeffectively apply and administer international law for social justice.

5

Therefore, the UN NGO non-profit institution of IVU, as a law center, university, and hostorganization for the ACIJ human rights Court, is the full embodiment of a major human rightsmovement, which is ideally positioned to achieve maximal global impact. As such, IVU serves asa centrally integrated focal point, providing a unique and historic opportunity for real-worldimpact for social justice.

For those reasons, it is the sincere belief of our institution that no other target of non-profitfundraising for humanitarian causes has ever been better prepared to accomplish tangible resultsfor the betterment of humanity worldwide.

Accordingly, we genuinely believe that there is no possible better use of tax-deductible grants anddonations than the most high-priority human rights missions of IVU and the ACIJ Court.

Exercise Your Real Power to Take Back Your Rights

Modern society has been subjected to thesystematic dismantling of all civil and humanrights, causing the carpet of freedom to be pulledout from under our feet. The result is none otherthan the collapse of modern civilization. If thisagenda is allowed to continue its growingdevastation, undermining all humanitarian values,then it will result in nothing less than literally “theend of life as we know it”.

Historically, soldiers have always been motivatedto go to war based upon the sincere belief in“preserving our way of life”, which the governmenttells them means our “rights and freedoms”.Paradoxically, as dominant countries aggressivelyattack and systematically destroy the foundingconstitutional principles and civil rights of all countries, which literally define “our way of life” as thevery fabric of society, not a single shot is fired in self-defense. While good soldiers are given gunsto actually go to war to defend “our way of life” (supposedly meaning our rights), “we the people”barely have enough rights left to merely protest to reclaim our rights from our own governments.

Fortunately, there does exist a form of lawful “warfare” to restore and defend human rights, whichis that of “legal warfare”, by means of the strict enforcement of all existing international law:

The primary weapon in the fight for human rights is the Judiciary, in the form of an internationalCourt of Justice exercising universal jurisdiction.

The secondary weapon is education, mobilizing university resources to train judges, lawyers andexperts in all relevant areas necessary for the full and forceful application of the full weight of thelaw.

If we do not take up this fight, then nothing else will be left that is worth fighting for.

The ammunition for these lawful weapons of legal warfare is non-profit grants and donations. As aresult, your donations have the power to give real force to human rights under international law.Every donation is a very real shot fired in self-defense, an effective counter-strike againstviolations of our rights and freedoms, and a significant advance for social justice.

5












5












6

Never before in the history of philanthropy have donations had the potential to make suchdramatic global impact for all of humanity, at such a high level internationally.

Established by Founding Grants of Over $3.0 Million USD

From 2008-2013, IVU successfully raiseda total of $3.0 million USD of assets andfunds, as seed capital for developing andestablishing effective workinginfrastructure for international operations,positioning the institution to subsequentlylaunch large-scale charitable andhumanitarian projects of global impact forsocial justice.

During the 5 year period of foundation anddevelopment, the following assets andproceeds were contributed to IVU as non-profit grants, as a result of privatefundraising efforts through professional networking:

A grant of $300,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the European-managed Board ofTrustees of the American-based Historical Preservation Society (HPS). Relatedcooperation resulted in establishing the Royal Institute of History and World Heritage ofIVU.

A grant of $550,000 USD was contributed to IVU by a Cairo-based international law firmoperating throughout the Middle East as well as in Germany and the Netherlands, theInternational Center for Legal Consultancy and Lawyers. Related cooperation resulted inestablishing the Royal Institute of Law and Social Justice of IVU.

A grant of $700,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the European-based Holy See ofAntioch of the Gnostic Apostolic Church (a religious historical institution from the 1st centuryas continued from the 15th century). Related cooperation resulted in establishing theInternational Accreditation Commission of IVU.

A grant of $450,000 USD was contributed to IVU by the Office of Special Legal Counsel tothe Russian Federation (OSLC-RF), a law firm and governmental independent contractorrun by veterans associations. Related cooperation resulted in establishing the RoyalInstitute of Geopolitics and Human Rights of IVU.

Prime real estate valued at over $1.0 million USD , to serve as a land base, was donatedto IVU by the Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon (a chivalric historicalinstitution from the 12th century). Strategically located on the banks of the Nile River inLuxor Egypt, this land positions the University divisions of IVU for cooperation withinternationally renowned Cairo University and Ain Shams University in Cairo, and facilitatescooperation with the Egyptian government as a leading country in the Non-AlignedMovement consortium of countries.

7

This background demonstrates that even during its early formative stages, the humanitarianmissions of IVU were capable of inspiring institutional support, attracting speculative preliminaryfundraising, generating total resources averaging $600,000 per calendar year, including liquidworking budgets averaging $400,000 per year.

Effective Use of Funds for Tangible Results

Since its inception in 2008, Ignita VeritasUniversity (IVU) has demonstrated astrong track-record of highly effective useof all non-profit funds raised, forsuccessful achievement of targetedresults, positioning the institution toaccomplish maximum impact for socialjustice on an international scale.

The history of successful establishment ofpowerful infrastructure for operationsestablishes a capability for effectiveimplementation of strategic plans, whichculminate in across-the-boardmanifestation of practical results over a 5year period. This demonstrates that onceIVU gains momentum through strategicdevelopment, it is capable of deliveringtangible work product which carriessubstantial impact advancing its non-profitmissions.

The successful implementation of IVU missions during its formative 5 years has accomplished thefollowing milestones, as a solid foundation for its capabilities to achieve major impact for socialjustice internationally:

United Nations Status – In March 2013, IVU successfully obtained official United Nationsstatus as a non-governmental organization (NGO) and civil society organization (CSO).This strategically positions the Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) as “non-governmental”, establishing one of the key qualifications for the Court to assert universaljurisdiction over matters of international law.

International Licenses – In June 2013, IVU successfully obtained a diverse collection oflicenses from multiple Ministries of Egypt, a politically neutral Non-Aligned Movement(NAM) country. These include (1) a license as a Court of Law for international Justice, and(2) a license as a University educational and academic institution. The licenses areinternational in scope and authority of activities, and are permanent and unconditional,ensuring political independence of the legal powers and authorities.

8

Network of International Judges – In December 2013, IVU successfully establishedstrategic cooperation with the Foundation of International Justice for Arbitration (Egypt), andAin Shams University Law Faculty (Egypt), both of which support the judiciary andassociations of Judges throughout the Middle East and Africa. This provides access to anetwork of over 6,600 highly qualified English-speaking international Judges, to supportjudiciary functions of the Arbitration Court for International Justice (ACIJ).

Knowledge Base of Legal Research – By April 2014, in cooperation with its network ofinternational Judges, IVU completed research and development of a specialized body oflegal and geopolitical research, constituting a proprietary knowledge base of advancedinformation on practical applications and enforcement of international law. Thisaccomplishment empowered IVU to begin specific preparations for active use of its licensedjudiciary powers and authorities in real-world practice.

Academic Journal for Human Rights – In May 2014, IVU initiated the launch of TheAlliance Journal, as an academic journal of its University divisions. The journal serves asan online platform for professional networking and raising public awareness of key humanrights issues of international law, as a vehicle for promoting the ACIJ human rights Court.

Operating Statutes of the Justice Court – In August 2014, in cooperation with its networkof international Judges, IVU completed processing and synthesizing decades ofinternational law defining the role of the judiciary in exercising universal jurisdiction. Thismajor legal research project resulted in the development of all statutes and rules of theCourt necessary for its full operation as a public institution of Justice.

While these are major accomplishments, meeting (and sometimes exceeding) the ultimate end-goals of the most well-established human rights organizations, for IVU this was merely laying thefoundations for much greater missions. With another round of funding, IVU will be in a betterposition than ever to implement further targeted plans of maximal global impact for human rightsand freedoms.

9

Global Audience & Network for Impact of Social Justice

IVU is well positioned and prepared toengage with a global audience of like-minded professionals through socialmedia. Interaction with targeted networksrelated to professions and special interestgroups is a dynamic resource for ageneral mission of raising publicawareness of human rights and socialjustice issues. It is also a highlyproductive means of ongoing recruitmentof non-profit volunteers, highly qualifiedprofessionals for full-time positions, andphilanthropic fundraising experts andfacilitators.

The premier social media networkingplatform for professionals is LinkedIn, which effectively facilitates the active participation andengagement of users through interest groups. LinkedIn groups serve to attract and motivatepeople of relevant qualifications to volunteer for non-profit projects and otherwise contribute tovarious movements.

As of 2014, groups related to civil rights, human rights and social justice on LinkedIn constitute aninteractive participating audience of over 237,900 professionals. Of that audience, over 47,300participate in groups for the legal and judiciary professions as related to human rights and socialjustice. Other major segments are over 81,400 users in groups specifically dedicated to humanrights, over 39,600 users in groups focused on geopolitical interests related to human rights, andover 69,600 users in Christian networking groups which emphasize support of human rights.

This global audience appears to be the same popular base for several of the most popularalternative media and blogging websites which highlight human rights and social justice topics.Such sites report audiences averaging 210,000 subscribers or followers, who routinely visit thesites and react or respond to new postings. Since subscribers are typically proactive professionalsinterested in networking for social activism, they tend to subscribe to multiple groups and sites.For this reason, it is generally believed that such sites dedicated to the same topics are followedby the same core audience as the network participating through LinkedIn groups.

Active and effective engagement with the core audience is primarily driven by the key resource of“content”. The most attractive postings, which generate maximum response and activeengagement from this audience, are those consisting of articles or information.

IVU possesses a wealth of proprietary content, which is highly relevant to the interest groupsegments of the core audience. Its university departments continually develop academic researchin international law, human rights, social justice, and history, all of which are relevant to currentevents captivating popular news headlines.

9








9








10

The optimal vehicle for delivering content to the targeted audience groups is a branded blogwebsite. IVU operates an academic journal under its university, The Alliance Journal, as abranded blog. This is the ideal platform for publishing articles and informational content, in aformat ideal for posting links to the content on LinkedIn groups. This promotes brand awarenessand social consciousness of the activities of IVU as a non-profit NGO institution, while periodicallycausing the audience to visit the proprietary journal site. Inevitably, the result will be to graduallybuild up a direct subscriber base for the journal.

IVU is also effectively positioned to engage with a global network of qualified legal talent, throughrelevant associations of the legal profession. In addition to interaction with social media groups ofhuman rights supporters, this network is a more specialized resource for the Court to effectivelyrecruit paralegals, lawyers and Judges, both as part-time volunteers as well as full-time staff.

The National Lawyers Guild (United States) has at least 5,000 lawyers and judges throughout theUnited States, focused on civil rights, human rights, and protection of a free and independent legalprofession.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (France) has over 27,000 lawyers andjudges in at least 90 countries, concentrating on human rights and independence of the judiciary.

The International Union of Lawyers (Russia) has over 30,000 lawyers and judges throughout atleast 16 countries of Eastern Europe and Western Europe, dedicated to promoting founding UNprinciples of international law and upholding independence of the judiciary.

The International Bar Association (United Kingdom) has over 50,000 lawyers and judges in morethan 170 countries, featuring a Human Rights Institute founded with Nelson Mandela.

These strategic cooperative relations give IVU access to an active professional network of over112,000 lawyers, covering all 193 countries of the United Nations.

According to statistics from the International Union of Lawyers, Judges and judiciary officersconstitute 13.3% of active membership in professional associations of lawyers. Therefore, of over47,300 legal professionals participating in social media networks, plus over 112,000 members ofprofessional law associations, IVU has access to at least 21,000 Judges.

IVU maintains strategic cooperation with the Foundation for International Justice and Arbitration(Egypt), a network of approximately 10,000 Judges throughout 14 countries of the Middle East,who are officially registered as international Judges, made available “on call” to Courts of Law ofvarious countries. Among the majority of judges who are also law professors at universities, 55%are “foreigners” listed as “Europeans”. Over 66% of the judges are proficient in English language.As a result, IVU has direct access to a specialized network of at least 6,600 Judges who canprocess cases in English language.

Therefore, IVU has full access to combined networks of over 27,600 experienced Judges whocan process international law and human rights cases involving evidence and case files in English,as a reliable resource for long-term operation of the ACIJ human rights Court.

11

Budgetary Use of Funds and Fundraising Targets

All overhead and general operating costsof a Court are merely secondary andincidental to its core functions.

The essential function of a Court is toprocess cases, which in turn dependsupon the number of Judges available toinvestigate and adjudicate cases.

For these reasons, IVU calculates the useof non-profit funds for the ACIJ Court inrelation to the number of full-time Judges,such that operational budgets areconsidered on a “per Judge” basis.

Annual Budgets as Operating Costs in Proportion to Judges:

Annual Budgetary Expenses for Operating Costs Monthly$ 76,000 Salary for full-time work of 1 Judge (including private work facilities) $ 6,333$ 36,000 Outsourced law firm support for cases (average billable hours) $ 3,000$ 32,000 Administrative support staff and clerks (average hourly stipends) $ 2,666$ 36,000 Expert academic and legal research for cases $ 3,000$ 25,000 International travel costs with accommodations (expected quarterly) $ 2,083$ 9,600 Secure encrypted mobile and internal communications $ 800$ 4,800 Electronic and office equipment and supplies $ 400$ 38,000 Enforcement officers for Court orders (average hourly stipends) $ 3,166$ 19,200 Enforcement costs filing judgments (average filing fees) $ 1,600$ 276,600 $ 23,048

The hiring strategy for Judges and staff is a streamlined simplified relationship, which avoidsbureaucracy and minimizes management, while providing strong benefits:

For an organization of such global scope, it is not practical to participate in the unique labour andtax regulatory regimes in diverse countries related to employment relationships. All staff for theACIJ Court are legally positioned as “independent contractors”, such that each professionalreceives the necessary portion of working budgets from the non-profit grant funds of the NGO.Each person is responsible for reporting any portion which may be attributable as individualincome under tax laws of their local jurisdiction, while the NGO has no such obligation.

The equivalent of “benefits” is provided by simply increasing the budgetary disbursement for eachstaff member, to cover health care and other heath maintenance costs. Medical leave or vacationtime is provided simply by continuing the monthly budgetary disbursements during periods ofunavailability, during which volunteer experts would fill in for the staff member under the guidanceof other paid staff contractors. Approximately 27% is added to staff budgets as “benefits”, suchthat a base of $60,000 for Judges becomes $76,000, a base of $30,000 for enforcement officersbecomes $38,000, and a base of $25,000 for staff becomes $32,000.

11










11










12

The average full-time work of 1 presiding Judge necessary to adequately process 1 Court caseand issue judgment and orders, is approximately 4 full work weeks of 7 working days, extended by4 weekends of 2 days of rest, thus requiring a total of 36 calendar days. As a result, during acalendar year, 1 full-time Judge can process and adjudicate a total of 10 cases.

Therefore, every $276,000 donated to IVU funds the full-time work of a team of 1 leadingJudge accompanied by supporting staff, for 1 calendar year of operations.

Accordingly, since an operations team led by 1 Judge can process 10 cases per year, every$27,660 donated to IVU funds the full-time processing of 1 judicial case submitted to theCourt.

Annual Fundraising Target for Full Operations

For comparison, to contrast with the targetlevel of operations and case-load capacityof the Arbitration Court of InternationalJustice (ACIJ) of IVU, the most prominentinternational courts have the followingstatistics:

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has18 Judges with a panel of 6 Judges sittingin the trial chamber on each case,allowing the Court to process 1 case at atime. From 2002 to 2014, the ICC hasprocessed a total of only 8 cases,averaging only 0.66 cases per year.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses a panel of 15 total Judges, sitting in a chamber of 5Judges on each case, allowing to process 3 cases at a time. From 1946 to 2014, the ICJ hasprocessed a total of only 160 cases, averaging only 2.3 cases every year.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has a panel of 47 Judges, sitting in a chamber of 3-7 Judges on each case, allowing an average of 10 cases at a time. From 2011 data, the ECHRappears to issue final judgment on approximately 1,100 cases annually. These numbers indicatethat each case receives attention for only 3 days (demonstrating a trend of superficially rushingcases with a priority on clearing caseload at the expense of meaningful Justice in each case).

For the ACIJ Court, the target operations level is that of 10 full-time Judges, ensuring a case-load capacity of 100 cases per year, each of which would receive full and proper attention forfair and effective judgments with appropriate remedies and meaningful enforcement. This goalrequires a target operating budget of $2.766 million USD annually.

The ACIJ model is for a chamber of 3 Judges to adjudicate each case. Fortunately, it will besufficient and effective (during growth stages) for 1 full-time Presiding Judge to work with 2 part-time volunteer Judges on each case. The target goal of 10 full-time Judges would be reliablysupported by only 20 additional volunteers from the existing network of over 27,600 qualifiedJudges available.

13

IVU has access to a core audience of at least 237,900 human rights supporters. If every one ofthose people donated only $11.63 (or if only 10% of them donated $116.30), then the annualbudget of $2.766 million could be readily achieved. Such grass-roots funding at this level isgenerally sustainable on a long-term basis, and is feasible to achieve every year.

The initial target level of operations, of 10 full-time Judges processing 100 cases per year, wouldhave a capacity 10 times greater than ICC, 3.3 times greater than ICJ, and equal to that of ECHR.That capacity would support full and proper judicial rulings on 151 times more cases than ICC,43.5 times more cases than ICJ, and 9.1% of the cases of ECHR (but giving due attention to everycase) every year.

Endowment Strategy for Perpetual Sustainable Operations

During the initial 5 year period ofdevelopment of IVU and the ACIJ Court,all non-profit funds needed to be spenton the necessary and formidable costsof establishing lawful authorities andinfrastructure for judiciary operations.Fortunately, however, at this stage whenthe institution is already well positionedto launch active operations, most fundsdo not need to be spent, but rather canbe managed to achieve greaterpermanence and longevity of continualoperations.

As an international institution serving apublic function of meeting a global needfor Court of Justice, none of the non-profit funds can ever be placed at risk by any form of “investment”. The only truly safe andresponsible means of leveraging the power of non-profit donations, is available from variouscountries in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM):

Certain NAM countries have a standard option of Certificate of Deposit (CD) instruments, with atleast 11% annual yield on principal, with principal fully guaranteed by the issuing banks, backed bytangible collateral which the banks are obligated to place with the national central bank. Suchcountries still have traditional laws which preserve the fundamental doctrine and human right thatall funds deposited in a bank must remain the property of the depositors, with full and unlimitedliability to all depositors. Yields are paid on a monthly basis, ensuring continual cash-flow withoutartificially waiting for the end of each calendar year.

Through this traditional banking model, still available in some countries whose banking laws fullyrespect human rights and the Rule of Law, IVU can safely place batches of non-profit funds intoCD instruments, to generate perpetual budgets from annual yields, without any risk.

Using this endowment fund management strategy, as a result of a 11% annual yield on principal:

14

For long-term sustainability planning, 7% of all endowment income is added to the endowment.This provides an offset against inflation to maintain the buying power of residual income, or in theabsence of inflation advances the long-term growth of the endowment. The annual operationsbudget of $2.766 million plus the adjusted 7% supplement results in the long-term permanentsustainability target of $2.9 million.

Each endowment batch of $2.9 million would generate the net annual budget (after the 7%margin) of $296,670 in perpetuity, to support a permanent operation of 1 full-time Judge withsupporting staff processing 10 cases per year;

An endowment level of $29.0 million would generate the net annual budget of $2.96 million inperpetuity, to support a permanent operation of 10 full-time Judges with supporting staffprocessing 100 cases per year.

Endowment level funding, targeting increments of $2.9 million, with the goal of eventually raising afull $29.0 million, would give tremendous additional benefits beyond the fact of funding. Thiswould serve to avoid dependence upon continual grass-roots funding, and thus eliminate the riskof unlawful interference or economic downturns which could potentially undermine annualfundraising efforts.

This endowment strategy would thus permanently establish a stable and self-sustainable level ofinstitutional operations, ensuring independence and continuity to reliably meet global needs forJustice.

Once an endowment level of funding is achieved, it would transform every grant within theendowment into a continual, self-replicating contribution. At 11% annual yield generated fromprincipal, the institution will have the additional benefit (after the inflationary adjustment) of at least100% of the original grants over every 10 year period. Budgets from the annual yield could thenbe fully spent to actively accomplish all non-profit missions of the institution, without ever depletingthe principal.

15

Unlimited Public Demand for Expansion

Statistics for the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR) indicate that itgenerally rejects or refuses over 90% ofall cases submitted, and 2011 data placesthat figure at 97% over recent years.Processing cases at a rate of only 3 daysfor each whole case file, ECHR judgmentsdismiss over 60% of all cases withoutremedy.

As a result, a full 98% of all cases arerefused or dismissed, with prejudice, suchthat only a precious 2% of all cases everreceive proper judiciary treatment at all.This reality has caused the UN and EUhuman rights courts to have an increasingly negative reputation, widely considered by the generalpublic to be merely “where human rights cases go to die”.

These figures indicate that the general public demand for justice in human rights cases, in theEuropean Union (including some of Eastern Europe) alone, is at least 36,600 cases annually.Based upon geographical territory and population, by which a worldwide figure would be at least 3times higher, this indicates an estimated global demand of over 100,000 cases every year.

Accordingly, a maximal level of institutional global operations of the Court would be 10,000 full-time Judges, requiring an ongoing budget of $2.8 billion USD annually.

Since IVU has access to networks of over 27,600 qualified Judges, this global level would beentirely possible to implement, employing only 36% of Judges which ACIJ already has access to.

Using the endowment strategy of Certificates of Deposit bearing 10% annual yield, an endowmentfunding of $28 billion would generate that annual budget of $2.8 billion in perpetuity, with no needfor any subsequent grass-roots fundraising.

Therefore, even this extreme level of maximal global operations is feasible to implement as apermanent and self-sustainable international institution.

(Government grants from countries directly contributing to the Court can achieve this multi-billionlevel. Also, since a substantial portion of punitive damages benefits the Court, and judgmentsagainst violating countries can reach hundreds of millions, the enforcement and collection ofjudgments would allow the Court itself to raise such a level of endowment funds. However, beforecountries can directly contribute or enforcement collection is reliable, the Court must be solidlycapitalized by basic endowment level funding, empowering it to function effectively to achievewidest recognition and strongest enforceability. In this way, multi-million level endowment fundingwill make it feasible for the Court to develop its own multi-billion level permanent endowmentfunding as a major global institution.)

This information highlights the key point, that there is virtually “no limit” to the public demandfor access to Justice, and for the proper and meaningful judiciary handling of serious cases ofhuman rights and international law.

16

Therefore, even when target fundraising and endowment levels are fully achieved, those sametargets can be repeated, successively, without any waste, nor surplus, nor any redundancy. As aresult, large-scale grass-roots movements for donations, or major institutional or evengovernmental endowment grants, have unlimited capacity to make direct impact in the lives ofbillions of citizens worldwide.

Institutional Operations for Enforcement of Judgments

The general public, as the people of the nations, widelyunderstand that the mechanisms of Justice must necessarilyinclude real-world capabilities for enforcement, “with teeth”.The most common-sense measure of whether a Court is“real” or will be effective, is what means it has and isprepared to use to ensure that Justice is carried out inpractice.

As was famously stated by the 1st Viscount Gordon Hewart,7th Lord Chief Justice of England (1870-1943), “[It] is offundamental importance that Justice should not only bedone, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to bedone. … Nothing is to be done which creates even asuspicion that there has been an improper interference withthe course of Justice.” [1]

In the popular perception of people worldwide, the failure orrefusal to enforce Court orders and judgments is very muchthe same as “interference with the course of Justice”, asJustice is not “seen to be done”. Thus, every judgmentwhich is not enforced undermines public confidence in bothJustice as a principle, and in the Judiciary as an institution.

Surprisingly, the prominent international Courts do not have any enforcement functions atall. The official policy of the existing well-known Courts is to limit their activities to issuingjudgments, and to leave it to the plaintiffs or victims to seek enforcement.

According to a handbook distributed by the European Court, “Human Rights judgments areconcrete tools of advocacy. … States are under an international legal obligation to implementhuman rights judgments. However, just because States should implement the judgment does notmean they will always do so in real life. … A judgment from the Court acknowledges in clear andauthoritative terms that a violation has occurred, and gives rise to the legal obligation to makechanges.” [2].

In this way, victims often have to appeal to the same violating countries to enforce judgmentsagainst the government’s own violations. All the while, those countries know that the Court has nointention of any further action, giving them no incentive or reason to take corrective action.

As a result, relying upon “voluntary compliance” alone, the average enforcement rate of EuropeanCourt of Human Rights (ECHR) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments is only 21%.Even the International Criminal Court (ICC), in which trials are held based upon pre-existingpolitical pressure from countries pledging enforcement support, has only a 63% enforcement rate.

16










16










17

For European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgments, there are no direct statistics forsuccessful enforcement, but rather compliance is measured in terms of the number of “repetitivecases” each year, indicating that a previous judgment in the same type of case was not enforcedby the violating country. Thus, dividing the number of repetitive cases by the total number of acategory of cases yields a percent figure, generally indicating the percent of judgments which werenot enforced.

According to 2011 statistics from the Council of Europe, repetitive cases in the ECHR during a 3-year period comprised an average of 87% of pending cases, 85% of new cases, and 67% ofclosed cases [3]. This results in an average of 80% of all cases which were repeat violationsarising from the apparent failure of countries to implement prior judgments of that Court.Conversely, this demonstrates an estimated rate of effective enforcement as 20% of all issuedjudgments.

For International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments, there are no direct statistics for countries’compliance, but legal scholars have made some estimates based upon studies and analysis of thecollective case histories of that Court. A study by former ICJ Judge Oda noted that of 36 cases ofunilateral application without prior consent to the Court’s jurisdiction, only in 8 cases the defendantcountries did not object to compulsory jurisdiction and complied with the judgments [4]. Thisestablishes a compliance rate for effective enforcement of 22%.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued (as of 2014) a total of 27 arrest warrants, ofwhich 17 were arrested and brought to trial, and 10 remained as fugitives. This demonstrates asuccess rate of 63% for enforcement of arrest warrants for international crimes.

The Arbitration Court of InternationalJustice (ACIJ) is unique, in being thefirst human rights and internationalJustice Court in history to have in-house proactive enforcementoperations as a core component of itsinstitutional infrastructure.

According to the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR) handbook, “NGOsare in a position to put pressure ongovernment authorities that may beunwilling to implement. … NGOs can usejudgments to support lobbying oradvocacy activities.” [5].

For this reason, ACIJ is established as an autonomous subdivision of a United Nations NGO hostinstitution, Ignita Veritas University. The host NGO operates an international law center withlicensed “law firm” authorities for advocacy, with “think tank” functions for promoting public policy,both backed by university faculty resources. This NGO status thereby empowers ACIJ withpractical support for real-world enforcement of its judgments.

The universal practice of domestic Courts for effective enforcement of judgments primarilyinvolves (1) monitoring compliance, (2) follow-up with penalty orders for non-compliance, and (3)cooperation with other agencies, both domestic and foreign, to enforce judgments. While thisbasic strategy may seem easier or more intuitive for a domestic Court which is inherentlyconnected to other domestic agencies, the same enforcement mechanism is just as viable andpractical for an international Court to implement in its own multinational context.

18

The only reason why the previous Courts of the UN system do not have any enforcementoperations, is because of the limitations of the “treaty-based” system, which is inherently flawed:

Meaningful enforcement “with teeth” requires issuing punitive Court Orders for civil violations of“contempt of court” and criminal violations of “obstruction of justice”, against any and all countryofficials and agencies who willfully refuse or negligently fail to enforce binding Court judgments.No treaty-based Court can do so, as that would risk countries withdrawing from the treaty, thusterminating their funding contributions to the Court, and preventing the Court from exercising itstreaty-based jurisdiction over countries which are the worst violators.

The enforceability of judgments of theArbitration Court of International Justice(ACIJ) is directly provided by statutoryauthority of international law. These arenot mere voluntary “treaties”, andcountries cannot simply “opt out” of them.Rather, they are United Nationsconventions, duly enacted by the UNGeneral Assembly, which are fully bindingupon all countries.

Those pre-existing international lawsalready provide for absolute Judiciaryauthority of the Court, directlyempowering it to take diverse and strongmeasures to ensure the full enforcementof its judgments internationally.

ACIJ enforcement capabilities include:

1. Chamber of Compliance Judges

This in-house department is dedicated to enforcement and collection of ACIJ Court Orders andjudgment awards. Compliance Judges are special officers of the Court with full judiciary authorityand immunities, who monitor implementation of judgments by domestic authorities, overseeingcompliance. The Chamber’s operations include routinely serving government officials with CourtOrders for enforcement, registering judgments domestically, and filing liens and credit reports in alljurisdictions related to a violating person or entity. Compliance Judges ensure that all instances ofnon-compliance are referred to the Presiding Judges to issue corrective Court Orders.

2. Punitive Orders for Contempt of Court

International law gives statutory authority for the Judiciary to impose civil liability for “contempt ofcourt”, and criminal liability for “obstruction of justice”, against all country officials and agencieswho fail or refuse to enforce judgments. Such Orders must be issued aggressively, at the first signof any non-compliance, and require follow-through to enforce those Orders at higher levels orthrough foreign countries. Contempt Orders must be meaningfully punitive, involving tens ofmillions in fines for each and every instance, and including imprisonment sentences for violatingofficials whenever possible.

19

3. Critical Mass of Accumulating Liabilities

A government agency which disregards a valid Court Order is also likely to ignore a contemptjudgment. However, the Court serving notice on each higher agency up the chain of commandtriggers new obligations to enforce. Each additional agency risks liabilities for its own violations ofnon-compliance, and can also be held legally liable for the accumulating penalties incurred bylower agencies. This results in a “snowball effect”. At some point, this rapidly inflating “price tag”for non-compliance must inevitably reach an unacceptable level of economic, political, civil andcriminal liability for the government itself. By this mechanism, liabilities reaching a sufficient levelof “critical mass” will force compliance.

4. Leveraging International Alliances

Once liabilities for non-enforcement quickly reach the national level, the government of the non-compliant country itself becomes a violator. International law imposes a strict obligation of allcountries to fully enforce international laws and judgments of the international Court. The ongoing“snowball effect” thus becomes a roaming threat of liability to each subsequent country which failsto enforce the punitive Court Orders against the first violating country.

The Ministry of Justice of any country can enforce Court judgments against a violating country byseizing its Embassy bank accounts in the host country, which are necessary for Embassyoperations. Foreign countries can also execute arrest warrants for any violators appearing withintheir sovereign territory. Only one single friendly country is needed to begin real enforcement.

Many countries, which are often targeted by propaganda of false accusations of alleged “humanrights” violations for isolated events, are eager to enforce Justice for the systemic and large-scaleviolations by dominant countries. Such countries are also determined to end decades ofincreasing abuses and circumvention the Rule of Law, as violations of major international lawswhich have never even been used by any international Court – until now. Those countries areunified as a majority 71% of all UN member states, called the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

The social justice policies of NAM are also shared by the powerful BRICS alliance of major worldpowers, which has the economic and political “muscle” to defend the NAM member-states againstany political retaliation for enforcing international law against dominant violating countries.

The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) Chamber of Compliance Judges only needs toconcentrate on the relatively centralized intergovernmental channels of the NAM and BRICSstructures. The broader alliance of affiliated countries through this network enables the Court tocoordinate meaningful enforcement measures with a full 80% of countries worldwide.

5. Economic Sanctions by Lien & Credit Filings

All jurisdictions have systems for creditors to file liens against property and assets. When a Courtof Law issues a binding judgment award for compensatory and punitive damages, the Court itselflegally becomes a “creditor”, allowing the Court to file liens against violators, whether they areindividuals as private persons or public officials, or legal entities including government agencies.While the Court has statutory authority to directly order seizure of property and assets, filingregistered liens serves as a “backup plan”, providing an additional mechanism which triggersobligations of domestic authorities to help seize assets to satisfy the liens.

20

The filing of liens in domestic jurisdictions is more routine, and thus less political, making thepractice an effective alternative to bypass resistance to implementing enforcement measures.Liens avoid the need for subjective decision-making by authorities. Indeed, liens which are filedcannot be rejected nor removed, unless the domestic authority can prove that the liens do nothave a legal basis. Since the ACIJ Court has a solid legal package proving its Judiciaryauthorities, all liens filed by Compliance Judges of the Court cannot be challenged, and effectivelytrigger all related enforcement consequences.

Liens are further supported by the related filing of credit claims to Credit Reporting agencies,causing the liens to be entered into the official credit records of violating individuals or agencies.This combination is a highly effective and powerful method of “economic sanctions”, causing a de-facto “blockade” of all loans and credit transactions, and interfering with even receivinggovernmental budgets or grants of a violating entity. The filings and reporting give potentialpartners, creditors or employers worldwide legal notice that the violator has a registered convictionor judgment by a Court of Law, which has priority on all income and assets associated with theviolating person or entity.

6. Fast-Track Enforcement by UN Conventions

In addition to serving as a Court of Justice, the ACIJ is also positioned and licensed as an“Arbitration” Court. In many cases, individuals and legal entities as defendants can be subject toadditional “arbitration” jurisdiction by proprietary methods applying contract law principles of legalnotice triggering indirect acceptance. In most cases, countries are subject to additional“arbitration” jurisdiction as members to contractual provisions of UN conventions which givestatutory authority to the Court. As a result, many judgments of the Court will have dual bindingeffect as an “arbitration award”, giving supplemental enforcement capabilities.

International law provides for special “fast track” enforcement of arbitration award judgments,under both the UN Geneva Convention on Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927, and theUN New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958.This framework establishes priority cross-border enforcement of binding arbitration awards,making the judgments binding upon all domestic Courts of Law in all countries. It requires Courtsto automatically adopt arbitration judgments for immediate enforcement and collection, without anyfurther hearing (bypassing the review normally used for “foreign judgments”).

7. UN NGO Advocacy for Enforcement

Ignita Veritas University (IVU), as a United Nations NGO institution, is in a strong position foradvocacy in support of enforcing judgments of the Court. Although IVU is the host institutionproviding infrastructure to the Court, ACIJ is autonomous, and has its own independent Charterand statutory authority as a Judiciary body. As a result, IVU has greater flexibility to advocate forenforcement, making public campaigns and more aggressive statements which the Court wouldnot want to issue as official statements. This empowers the NGO to pursue strong public efforts,without any political implications for the Court itself, maintaining necessary Judiciaryindependence and neutrality for the Court. As a United Nations NGO, IVU is authorized to“accredit” its representatives to UN conferences and events as delegates, for active participation inofficial channels of diplomatic affairs and international movements of governments and non-profitorganizations worldwide.

21

[1] Lord Chief Justice Gordon Hewart, R v. Sussex Justices: Ex Parte McCarthy, All ER Rep 233(1923),1 KB 256 (1924), ruling on the necessary recusal of Judges for the mere appearance ofbias.

[2] Basak Cali & Nicola Bruch, Monitoring the Implementation of Judgments of the European Courtof Human Rights: A Handbook for Non-Governmental Organizations, May 2011, pp.5-6.

[3] Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the Execution of Judgments andDecisions of the European Court of Human Rights, April 2012, pp.33-34.

[4] Judge Shigeru Oda, The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A Myth?,49 Int’l & Comp LQ, 2000, p.251, at pp.257-259.


Official Certification of Public Grants Prospectus

The Arbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ) is a licensed Court of Law, empowered withuniversal jurisdiction over all matters involving international law, under “UN Declaration ofHuman Rights” (Articles 10, 28), “UN Remedy for Human Rights” (Articles 3(c), 5, 12, 14), and“UN Right to Protect Human Rights” (Articles 1, 3, 5, 9.1-9.2), “UN Justice for Abuse of Power”(Articles 5, 7), and “UN Independence of Judiciary” (Articles 3, 9.4).

As a UN NGO institution empowered to perform judiciary functions, its official powers andauthorities include United Nations status under “UN Privileges and Immunities” as advisor andtechnical expert (Sections 16, 22) and “UN Associated Personnel” (Article 1(b)iii), with mandate toissue official documents (Article 3.2).

Based upon official factual investigation and relevant legal analysis, the Arbitration Court ofInternational Justice hereby certifies and issues the present official document, upon which allsponsors, donors grant sources and third-parties may rely.

Endorsed and Ratified by Official SealChancellor of Chamber of Instruction JudgesHuman Rights Court DivisionArbitration Court of International Justice (ACIJ)

21











21











Documents

Human Rights Court for Social Justicereignoftheheavens.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GRANTS-Prospectus-ACIJ-2014.pdfGRANTS PROSPECTUS Human Rights Court for Social Justice Non-Profit