Tribunal Standards

General standard

Summary:

The General Standards of this Tribunal establish the foundational framework for an independent human rights investigative body mandated by the UN Istanbul Protocol, created to confront and end systemic discrimination, abuse, and torture of disabled and pro se litigants in U.S. courts. These standards recognize the presumptive vulnerability of disabled litigants and the routine failure of courts to provide required accommodations as acts amounting to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment—or torture when substantiated. They reaffirm that all human rights treaties signed or ratified by the United States are supreme law under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, enforceable in domestic courts, and not subject to dilution by later laws, reservations, or judicial discretion. The Tribunal provides model rulings and critique of deviant courts in matters of human rights compliance, especially regarding the treatment of disabled litigants, the integrity of judicial conduct, and the enforcement of accommodations and Safe Harbor provisions. No claim of judicial independence, immunity, or separation of powers is permitted to obstruct these standards, and the models are inherently critical of courts that enforce any statute, rule, or precedent that risks violating non-derogable rights. The Tribunal also investigates and exposes secret or unofficial policies, provides model analysis for judicial disqualification upon credible rights violations, and prohibits through model findings all judicial practices that discriminate on the basis of disability or deny meaningful accommodation. These principles inspire critical thinking that judicial ethics, procedural safeguards, and legal remedies remain aligned with the preemptive force of international human rights law.

Basis: UNCAT Article 16, the absolute prohibition of torture per the jus cogens of customary international law and the piercing of State sovereignty and judicial immunity, enforceability of UNCAT RUDs according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 18, and the Concluding Remarks of the US Committee Against Torture (CAT) CAT/C/USA/3-5, 2014, CRPD Article 15, ICCPR Article 7.

Standard on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of litigants and third parties by judges

Summary: Every complaint to the IAJ by a litigant or third party, supported by substantial evidence, alleging cruelty, inhumanity or degradation of the human being by any adjudicator of any court or administrative forum or other forum presided over by any person(s) under color of authority or involving any person(s) who acts under the color of authority of such a person or forum, Article 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) shall faithfully be applied and investigated according to the UN Istanbul Protocol, and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. The Tribunal holds to the findings of the highest authority on the UNCAT in the world: the UNCAT RUD is non-essential and severable by virtue of its conflict with the object and purpose of the UNCAT and the operation of the VLCT Article 18. No human being may be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, by any judge or any court as a condition of access to jurisprudence through the court, or in the course of jurisprudence. Such conduct constitutes infringement of non-derogable rights that is not justified under any circumstance, and is punishable at law. No judge shall be immune from such punishment, or from personal liability for harm. No statute of limitations shall apply.

Basis: UNCAT Article 16, the absolute prohibition of torture per the jus cogens of customary international law and the piercing of State sovereignty and judicial immunity, enforceability of UNCAT RUDs according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 18, and the Concluding Remarks of the US Committee Against Torture (CAT) CAT/C/USA/3-5, 2014, CRPD Article 15, ICCPR Article 7.

Standard on the torture of litigants and third parties by judges

Summary: Substantial grounds provided by a litigant or third party for violation of Article 1 of the UNCAT by any adjudicator of any court or administrative forum or other forum presided over by any person(s) under color of authority, or involving any person(s) who acts under the color of authority of such a person or forum, shall be independently investigated according to the UN Istanbul Protocol and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. The UNCAT RUD is non-essential and severable by virtue of its conflict with the object and purpose of the the UNCAT and the operation of the VLCT Article 18. No human being may be tortured by any judge or any court as a condition of access to jurisprudence through the court, or in the course of jurisprudence. Such conduct constitutes infringement of non-derogable rights that is not justified under any circumstance, and is punishable as torture. No judge shall be immune from such punishment, or from personal liability for harm. No statute of limitations shall apply. Every litigant has an inherent right to freedom from severe pain and suffering from judicial conduct according to Articles 1 and 16 of the UNCAT. Other human rights treaties and articles shall be invoked as appropriate, and the jus cogens of customary international law shall be applied.

Basis: UNCAT Article 1, the absolute prohibition of torture per the jus cogens of customary international law and the piercing of State sovereignty and judicial immunity, enforceability of UNCAT RUDs according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 18, and the Concluding Remarks of the US Committee Against Torture (CAT) CAT/C/USA/3-5, 2014, CRPD Article 15, ICCPR Article 7.

Standard on the Safe Harbor of litigants and third parties by judges

Summary: "Safe Harbor" has a specific meaning in this text. Ordinarily, the term "Safe Harbor" is a provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule. Used herein differently, it is a concept applicable under human rights treaties, common law and the US Constitution. Safe Harbor invokes a) human rights treaties that are enforced under International Law, with particular attention to the duty of investigation by government upon being notified of human rights treaty violations and b) demands the prevention of "savage and inhumane" treatment under the common law (Ford v. Wainwright (1986)), and c) invokes the US Constitution's Fifth and Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments that prohibit deprivation of fundamental rights and cruel and unusual punishment without due process of law. "Safe Harbor" is here defined as the accommodation by a court that ensures that the litigant does not suffer predicted and imminent physical or mental injuries as the price of access to the court. Thus statutory, procedural and rule-based provisions controlling due process must be relaxed if Safe Harbor is necessary, without prejudice to the person who receives the Safe Harbor in the court. Safe Harbor consists of principles and measures that accommodate the seriously ill, disabled or substantially incapacitated litigant and provide her with medically and scientifically recommended treatment and respite for uninterrupted medical treatment, and aids and modifications to rules and procedures and even statutes to ensure that Life, Liberty, Property and Due Process and Equal Protection, and freedom from cruelty, inhumanity and degradation are guaranteed impeccably to her. Safe Harbor is achieved when harm and injuries and prejudice that would result if accommodation were not provided, are demonstrably absent over the term of the litigation by virtue of the provision of proper and meaningful accommodation. Safe Harbor protects against unreasonable expectations of function and participation, against invariant judicial schemes and practices and norms especially those that; a) hold deadlines and orders as absolute conditions of performance by the litigant, b) promote exploitation by others that can be injurious to the protected party, c) promote injuries and willful and knowing injurious conduct under color of authority that may lead to physical or mental injuries. Every judge shall ensure Safe Harbor is provided without oppression or undue burden to the litigant, and is effective and timely. Each judge shall look beyond the confines of their court and ensure that the litigant who is involved in multiple concurrent litigation is GLOBALLY protected under Safe Harbor in every court. When a disabled litigant, who is in need of life-saving treatment, recovery or rehabilitation, which directly interferes with the rules, procedures and policies of the court, is denied life-saving treatment by the court, and the litigant is ordered to nevertheless participate in 'due process' according to the invariant rules, procedures and policies of the court or otherwise be punished, then the court has controlled the litigant's bodily autonomy and exercises legal custody over the person, and has controlled and specified his medical treatment, and stands in violation of human rights treaties and the jus cogens of customary international law. Human rights principles and treaties shall dominate the Safe Harbor and disability accommodation of disabled litigants in each court. No judge or court shall ignore or undermine any human right treaty's object or purpose, as determined in accordance with the operation of customary international law.

Basis: UNCAT Article 1, the absolute prohibition of torture per the jus cogens of customary international law and the piercing of State sovereignty and judicial immunity, enforceability of UNCAT RUDs according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 18, and the Concluding Remarks of the US Committee Against Torture (CAT) CAT/C/USA/3-5, 2014, CRPD Article 15, ICCPR Article 7.

Standard on the accommodation of disability and illness by courts during the judicial process

Standard:

The Tribunal for the Investigation of Disability Accommodation and Human Rights in the Courts is established to ensure that the accommodation of disabled and ill litigants within the judicial process is no longer determined at the exclusion of human rights by the very courts accused of discrimination, but instead scrutinized by an independent, nationally-accessible entity grounded in international human rights law. Rooted in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and informed by the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and customary international law, the Tribunal serves to establish and maintain the primacy of human rights—including the absolute prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and torture - within all state and federal courts. Its model findings mandate that all accommodations be determined independently, universally implemented without delay, and protected from judicial interference or litigation privilege. Under the models, courts and judges must obey Tribunal orders, prioritize the perspectives and medical needs of disabled litigants, permit rest (cessation of litigation), medical treatment, and accommodation as fundamental requirements of due process, and adapt or abandon any conflicting procedural norms, policies, or statutes. The Tribunal ensures prompt review of rights violations and ensures under its model findings that no pro se disabled litigant is denied constitutional due process, meaningful access, or the protections afforded by international human rights standards. Through this authority, the Tribunal aims to end systemic discrimination, legal torture, and structural injustices in the American judicial system through research, investigation, and education, and inspire a new global precedent for the treatment of disability and illness in the courts consistently with human rights standards.

Basis: CRPD and VCLT Article 18, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, UDHR, US Constitution.