About the Institute for Advancement of Justice and Human Rights

By admission of a distinguished legal scholar who, in 2017, resigned as a prominent 7th Circuit federal judge in protest, self-represented litigants are treated by judges as “a kind of trash not worth the time”. In a study beginning in 2018, measurements of 10 representative state and federal courts over a period exceeding seven years, including review of historical legal cases, provide the statistical prediction that every court in the United States deprives pro se litigants of Justice by degrees or altogether, and every judge violates human rights. Statistics predict that such litigants will be subjected to increasingly cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in every court and will be punished by judges without lawful justification, violating substantive Justice. Within the records of judicial treatment of pro se litigants are found fact patterns that report severe pain and suffering induced by courts, and intentional acts by judges that violate human rights principles and treaties.

Disabled people, in particular, are told that justice awaits them in courtrooms—if only they can perform as a judge expects. For many with invisible disabilities, the very act of adversarial participation without meaningful accommodation is not neutral, but neurologically and psychologically traumatic. The judicial treatment of disabled litigants, particularly those with invisible disabilities, deviates radically from what ordinary people expect from the courts. Reasonable people would find their treatment cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and disability laws identify their treatment as being discriminatory. Society does not hear about their treatment because the courts silence them and conceal the prohibited acts as lawful sanctions. While courts promise disability accommodations, judges do not provide accommodations or human rights to disabled litigants according to controlling laws. Many pro se litigants develop injury and disability as a result of their judicial treatment, become unequal in opportunity for success in litigation to their opponent, and are assured of injustice in the courts. Unethical attorneys exploit this systemic policy of non-compliance with human rights and the structural inequality in due process for unjust gain, and injustice. The study confirms that there is NO domestic mechanism for relief, remedy or punishment of these prohibited acts.

The seven-year study demonstrates that judges of state and federal laws behave consistently, committing prohibited acts as a norm, and stealthily justify and conceal their human rights violations through the creation of evidence and procedural justifications, with portrayal of their prohibited acts as lawful sanctions for alleged non-compliance and impropriety by the litigants. The justifications and concealments fail scrutiny under logic, reason, and law, but cannot be challenged through the courts, ensuring that the injustice is predictable and permanent. Under the courts' monopoly over jurisprudence and the lack of independent human rights oversight, the judicial process itself has become pathological by systemic judicial policy. Legal ethics are impotentiated to the degree that they are blind to human rights, and cannot be used to stop judicial abuse and torture of human beings, measured by health records, procedural conduct, and substantive outcomes in diverse cases. Jurisprudence inflicts harm and allows it to go unnamed and uncorrectable. Human rights principle and treaties, whose recognition and strict enforcement are the cornerstones of justice in human society, are disrespected by courts, and ignored by judges, who systemically collaborate to suppress treaties and principles that are resonant with the un-enumerated rights enshrined in the US Constitution.

When consistent and compelling measurements demonstrate that the judicial process cannot be relied upon to recognize, interpret, apply, protect and enforce human rights principles, treaties and standards, it is logical that, in the eyes of our judiciary, human rights will in general not hold the preeminent position required by the supreme Law of the Land or by human rights treaties, or by the jus cogens of customary international law. This presumptively signals to other branches of government, to public officials and to persons with authority that human rights may be violated without consequence at law.

Under human rights principles and treaties, it is well-understood that human rights compliance must not be measured by those who violate human rights, but by an independent and impartial and ethical independent investigation that gives legitimacy to a determination of prohibited acts. As human rights experts have authoritatively identified, and as a prominent international human rights standard requires, we the People of the United States of America do not have an independent human rights investigative body that may be used as a resource for all of us to ensure our tri-branch government's compliance with human rights both at the federal and state levels. Attempts to create this investigative body, and keep it independent of government, have failed by lack of cooperation with proposals for corrective action, and by deliberate violation of the investigation standard by government.

In order to address the non-compliance, and to address prohibited conduct that is promoted and enacted by the judicial branch of government, one approach is for the People to systemically review the conduct by judges and the orders and decisions by courts throughout the United States, and provide reporting and analysis based on standards that would be respected by international human rights experts and Special Rapporteurs, by legal scholars and academics, by use of objective, scientific and intellectual standards in diverse fields including medicine, psychology, sociology and others, and most importantly, respected by the ordinary reasonable person whose innate sense of justice is the litmus for legitimacy of judges and courts. As the American Bar Association reported in its president's letter to the US Supreme Court in 2023, that court's lowest legitimacy in history required correction. Legitimacy is the social basis for trust in our judges and courts, and as judicial ethics codes make very clear, without the People's trust, courts cannot and must not function. Therefore, the People's ever-increasing mistrust in our justice system must be addressed by the People's initiative in the continuing absence of judicial reform. By leveraging free speech and by oversight of our courts and judges through research and investigation, an independent NGO and NHRI could provide a mirror to judges reflecting their conduct and adjudication, and inform them of issues. Through discourse that invites thought and response, this NGO (Non-Government Organization), which is designed to be an NHRI (National Human Rights Institution), could achieve the elevation of judicial standards and education on laws that are discarded and deprecated, and therefore causing injustice and injury to litigants in our courts.

Human rights compliance with the highest standards of human rights principles and standards must be enforced in every branch of government, and meet with the required international human rights expectations and standards. Therefore the IAJ intends to operate broadly as it grows, consistently with the Paris Principles.

It is very important to remember that the People of the United States of America, and every other human being in the world, must be protected from human rights violations, including torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, at ALL TIMES, and WITHOUT FAIL. That includes our judges and public officials, who also must be protected, which requires providing them with education and a mirror regarding committing or acquiescing to torture and other acts prohibited by human rights principles. We cannot forget that judges and public officials are our family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, or unacquainted members of a national and a global society. The IAJ operates based on the belief that, when a human being who violates human rights is helped through education and independent assertion of truths, it is very likely that they will reform, and possible that they will even become the champions of reform. This is based on the common knowledge that human beings will not survive and prosper without society, that ALL humans are deeply interconnected, and that human beings are, by design, good and intent on harmony and a loving existence, and will become ill and un-social without these essential life ingredients. The success of the IAJ must be ultimately measured in terms of the unification of ONE human race, securely established by its unity under a unwavering dedication to the primacy of human rights for ALL, not its division and conflict.

Our Mission

The Institute for Advancement of Justice and Human Rights (IAJ) is dedicated to advancing justice and human rights through research, investigation, and accountability in judicial systems worldwide. It is the IAJ's goal to conform with the Paris Principles, which are a set of international standards adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993 (Resolution 48/134) that define the minimum criteria for national human rights institutions. On behalf of the People, and for the People, it provides a critical and missing component of the United Nations Istanbul Protocol for the investigation of substantially grounded allegations of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and torture by persons and entities who act under color of authority within the United States and its territories.

This missing independent component of international human rights compliance by the United States is necessary because the US Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation, holds the deepest respect for human rights treaties under Article VI. The US Constitution, which arose as a light in the world and inspired nations, deeply resonates with the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR principles may be used as a key for exploration of the numerous un-enumerated rights enshrined within the US Constitution. Therefore, this nation is inherently a nation that deeply reveres human rights, and whose leadership in world human rights must be incessant because its dignity, its survival and prosperity are intertwined with the dignity, the survival and the security of every other nation through treaties and international order, which insist on an essential baseline of human rights. It is this baseline and the work done by applying the goodness, intellect and reason of numerous human beings to the betterment of human existence that identifies the deficiencies in human rights compliance by government that the IAJ addresses.

The work of the IAJ, particularly in the area of independent investigation of the judicial process, is necessary because judges, courts and the judicial process, which are the last bastion of Justice and human rights compliance in the United States, currently fail to recognize, protect and enforce human rights according to human rights treaties and international standards. In particular, when human rights absolutely prohibit certain acts, judges and courts systemically turn a blind eye to them, and these acts continue to occur. The UN Istanbul Protocol, which is a world standard on the prevention, investigation and elimination of torture by government systems, is not implemented in the United States of America. This is a critical and missing component for the effective implementation of the baseline of human rights. The People, through the IAJ, address this absence of compliance, and act to hold and secure the world human rights baseline throughout the United States, and insist that their government demonstrates impeccable standards in human rights, and restores public and international trust.

Over-simplistically stated, the IAJ's function includes the independent investigation of discrimination and ill-treatment of litigants by judges and courts, according to the highest international human rights standards that are binding on the United States of America (by operation of the absolute prohibitions under the jus cogens of customary international law and the norms of civilized society, and by Article VI of the US Constitution). The IAJ aims to fulfill all of the requirements of an NGO and NHRI necessary to provide meaningful coverage of independent human rights investigation according to the highest standards of human rights. The Institute also reaches beyond international human rights standards and seeks to inspire and evolve those standards to higher levels. Therefore, every person who contributes to the IAJ must pledge to blazing a trail of selfless public service, impeccable integrity and rejection of bias, the dedicated search for the truth, and setting the highest standards of impartiality and independence.

The Essential Need for the IAJ

The IAJ came into existence as an NGO and was designed as an NHRI upon discovery by one Private Attorney General (PAG) that the United States of America does not implement an independent human rights investigative body as required by the absolute prohibition against torture, and expressed in the UN Istanbul Protocol, and confirmed by the highest authority on torture in the world. Upon determination of systemic judicial discrimination and human rights violations in every state and federal court by statistical methods and direct evaluation of 10 state and federal courts and over 40 judges over a span of 7 years, including the US Supreme Court, the PAG concluded that the United States disrespects human rights in its judicial process, and that an IAJ is necessarily required to come into existence as an NGO and designed as an NHRI. As a first requirement, the IAJ must become the missing component for the elimination of systemic discrimination and human rights violations that are enabled and promoted by the courts. It must achieve this by means of its independence, its dedication to truth, its expertize, its documentation and determination of human rights violations, because human rights stand and fall based on the judicial process as the last resort of human rights compliance under this form of constitutional government. Thus the IAJ provides the missing independent non-government human rights body required by international law and Article VI of the US Constitution.

The Paris Principles demonstrate reason and sound judgment about human rights and identify that the recognition and enforcement of human rights by every government requires an entity independent of government that will investigate and determine if human rights violations are occurring or have occurred. The Paris Principles are a set of international standards adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993 (Resolution 48/134) that define the minimum criteria for national human rights institutions. They ensure that NHRIs are independent (free from government interference, financially autonomous, and able to set their own agenda), broad in mandate (empowered to promote and protect all human rights, able to investigate violations, advise government, and educate the public), pluralistic (reflect diverse societal groups, include civil society voices), accessible and transparent (open to public complaints, publish findings and recommendations).

The Concluding Observations by the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5) confirms the need for the creation of the IAJ. There is a distinct contrast displayed on the world stage between U.S. assertions (Initial Report, CAT/C/USA/3-5 (2014)) with the Committee's concluding observations (CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5). The 2014 report by the CAT criticized many U.S. practices, and identifies failures of domestic implementation in areas like judicial torture, medical neglect, and disability discrimination. In its one-year required response, and then again in its Sixth Periodic Report, the US State Department defends the U.S. use of Reservations, Understandings and Declarations (RUDs), notably limiting the definition of torture and CIDT. Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), such reservations are severable if they undermine the object and purpose of the treaty, and the PAG confirms that an impermissible modification of the treaty consistent with the CAT’s 2014 identification of ‘required corrective actions’ is in force in the state and federal courts in the United States.

The IAJ is aligned with the world highest authority on torture (the CAT) through an independent consideration of CAT’s Concluding Observations and knowledge of federal and state courts. Based on increasing evidence, the IAJ is becoming informed that under the implementation of the UNCAT by the United States, compliance by the U.S. with the UNCAT has not been achieved. The IAJ therefore explicitly rejects the limiting RUDs by the United States in conducting its investigation and educational work. The U.S. has asserted that remedies under existing government implementations of the US Constitution and laws and its judicial process, ensure ‘equivalence’ with the direct enforcement of the UNCAT in every respect. The IAJ will critically investigate the alleged ‘equivalence’ of remedies, relief and punishment represented to the world by the United States in each case referred to it. Based on information, reasoning and evidence, the IAJ holds that the RUDs continue to systemically undermine Article VI of the US Constitution and the jus cogens of customary international law. The information, reasoning and evidence indicate that the U.S. RUDs create loopholes to US compliance with UNCAT, and thus US compliance can be broadly and significantly non-conformant with the treaty. Since UNCAT Article 16 is in effect through ICCPR Article 7 (by ratification) and CRPD Article 15 (by requirement of “good faith” under VCLT), other human rights treaties are undermined, in contravention of Article VI and jus cogens.

The IAJ affirms the unabridged and operative international definition of torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment under the UNCAT and as interpreted by the Committee Against Torture, Special Rapporteurs, and international courts, and that it is in effect under Article VI of the US Constitution and jus cogens of customary international law. Torture and CIDT are crimes and absolutely prohibited worldwide. Human rights and torture are evolving standards, and there is no statute of limitations for the prosecution of these human rights crimes. There is no sovereign or ministerial or judicial immunity that withstands the test of time, or tenure, or the emergent consciousness of humanity seen around the world.

While vehemently assuring the world of U.S. full compliance with UNCAT, the U.S. reports to the CAT rely heavily on military and law enforcement conduct and detention, but do not discuss torture and CIDT in the judicial process, particularly against a) pro se (self-represented) litigants, b) disabled or ill litigants, c) persons intimidated or coerced into litigation under threat of penalty. The U.S. State Department consistently represents the U.S. judiciary as a just, law-abiding and reliable independent mechanism that would always ensure treaty compliance at law when engaged. The IAJ continues to receive evidence to the contrary. The tri-branch government of the United States is required to operate under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, and thus there are gaps in scrutiny of branches of government, and necessarily limited views by one branch into another branch’s functions and processes. Thus it is essential for the IAJ to provide insight, feedback and educational content to each branch of government on a continuous basis. It is through the People’s engagement and oversight of the functioning of their government, and informing and cooperating on reform and excellence with each member of government that the baseline of human rights can be maintained in the United States.

The IAJ fills a doctrinal and procedural vacuum by treating US resistance to UNCAT compliance as 1) a partial and non-compliant interpretation of UNCAT obligations that create opportunity for the deprivation of the inalienable rights of the People of the United States, 2) a basis for IAJ’s independent investigations, ensuring documentation of human rights violations, and availability of scholarly reasoning and discourse identifying the need for correction and enforcement where U.S. domestic mechanisms have failed. Because the United States has repeatedly admitted through its writings to the CAT, that the U.S. lacks certain preventive mechanisms -- especially independent, non-governmental investigative bodies required for UNCAT implementation – the vacuum implicitly justifies the long-overdue creation of the IAJ under international human rights law, including the Paris Principles, the UN Istanbul Protocol and the UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture.

The IAJ notes that systemic judicial discrimination and human rights violations by government fundamentally undermine Justice and the US Constitution and human rights treaties, and degrade government and constitutional order, and deprive the People of the benefits promised by the Preamble to the US Constitution. The IAJ observes that facts being reported to the IAJ indicate large numbers of human beings in the United States are the subject of systemic judicial mistreatment (particularly in the Family courts), who are typically disadvantaged or disabled. The IAJ respectfully recognizes the service of distinguished legal scholar and federal appellate judge Richard Posner and his public exposure of the unfortunate reality that most judges regard pro se litigants as a "kind of trash not worth the time" (Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal 2017) of a judge and his brief advocacy for the self-represented litigants through his charity. While the IAJ, unlike judge Posner's charity, cannot and will not give legal advice, the IAJ’s model findings and publications should serve as a resource identifying (a) how human rights reshape procedural and substantive adjudication involving pro se and disabled litigants, (b) identify SYSTEMIC issues which require judicial attention to comply with human rights requirements, (c) enhance judicial conduct to meticulously respect human rights, and (d) identify judicially responsive correction required under Article VI and jus cogens.

It is through reports and publications and providing the missing mechanism expected from the United States under international law that the IAJ acts as an anchor of Civil Society Space that is essential to the baseline of local, national and international human rights.

Core Values

Our Work