Genocide by Stealth - Newsletter 002

Part 2. There is no remedy in Australian law for the victims of
the crime of genocide in Australia. My emphasis in bold.

The United Nations 'Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide'
was ratified by the purported government of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1949.
Since at least 1949, nothing of any benefit has eventuated to those being inflicted with the crime of genocide.
It is most important to convey the facts relating to the manner in which the purported Commonwealth
government has purposely and systematically avoided its legal obligations under the Convention in international law.

Ratification of this Convention was no more than 'window dressing' to deceive the international
community into believing that the purported Commonwealth of Australia was making positive steps
to improving issues relating to the crime of genocide.
The existence of the Convention was then conveniently kept off all government agendas, and no succesive
purported governments since 1949 introduced legislation to incorporate principles of the Convention into
Australian domestic law.
This means that under purported Australian law there are no such offences as committing genocide, attempts
to commit genocide, inciting genocide etc., and as such there are no penalties for such actions.

The Genocide Convention Act 1949 (refer appendix 3) was enacted merely to ratify the Convention.
Under international law the purported Commonwealth of Australia must legislate domestice law in
conjunction with the Genocide Convention Act 1949, being a requirement of the purported Commonwealth
of Australia ratifying the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties (refer appendix 4) in 1969.
Article 2 of the Vienna Convention states for the purposes of the Convention, "treaty" means an
international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law .....
Article 27 - Internal law and observance of treaties, reads:
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

The worst perpetrators of the crime of genocide in Australia are members of the purported governments and
government departments, and as no domestic laws for the crime of genocide exist in Australia. These members
cannot be found guilty and liable for compensation in the purported Commonwealth of Australia.

It was not until the late 1980's that mention of the Genocide Convention Act 1949 surfaced to any degree.
Attempts a few years later to have provisions of the Genocide Convention Act 1949 incorporated into legislation
were squashed when the purported government under leadership of purported Prime Minister Paul Keating
(1991-1996) declared that the Genocide Convention Act 1949 had no priority in the Keating Government's agenda.

In the year 2000 the Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (refer appendix 5) (A Bill for an Act to give effect to the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and for related purposes) was
introduced to the purported Commonwealth Legal and Constitutional References Committee for investigation
and review, however a debate over the Bill was voted down.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purported Commonwealth of Australia gave signature to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (ICC) (refer appendix 2) on 9th Dec 1998, with ratification occurring on 1st July 2002, and with its
Declaration and Reservation reading as follows:
"The Government of Australia, having considered the Statute, now hereby ratifies the same, for and
on behalf of Australia, with the following declaration, the terms of which have full effect in Australian
law, and which is not a reservation:
Australia notes that a case will be inadmissible before the International Criminal Court (the Court)
where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State. Australia reaffirms the primacy of its criminal jurisdiction in relation to crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court. To enable Australia to exercise
its jurisdiction effectively, and fully adhering to its obligations under the Statute of the Court, no
person will be surrendered to the Court by Australia until it has had the full opportunity to investigate
or prosecute any alleged crimes. For this purpose, the procedure under Australian law implementing
the Statute of the Court provides that no person can be surrendered to the Court unless the Australian Attorney-General issues a certificate allowing surrender. Australian law also provides that no person
can be arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court without a certificate from the
Attorney-General.
Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8 will be interpreted
and applied in a way that accords with the way they are implemented in Australian domestic law."

Article 17 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states in part:
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a
case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless
the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has
decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness
or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

The purported government gave Declaration and Reservation when ratifying the Rome Statute that
"Australia further declares its understanding that the offences in Article 6, 7 and 8 will be interpreted
and applied in a way that accords with the way they are implemented in Australian domestic law".
This is a most deceptive and misleading statement in law. The crime of genocide (per Article 6, see Appendix 2)
is not able to be implemented in purported Australian domestic law. No domestic legislation has been
introduced to incorporate provisions of the Rome Statute in regards to the crime of genocide.

The purported government is unwilling to genuinely investigate the crime of genocide as confirmed by its deliberate
avoidance in incorporating principles of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
and the Rome Statute of the ICC into domestic legislation.

Purported Australian courts generally accept the doctrine that the rules of international law are not to be considered
as part of Australian law until enacted by Parliament, however the purported government of Australia must realise
that a State's treatment of its nationals is now a matter of ligitimate international concern.

The United Nations Treaty Collection - Treaty Reference Guide (refer appendix 6) discusses an
overview of the key terms employed in the United Nations referring to international instruments binding at
international law, ie. treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda
of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes.
Part 18 entitled Ratification, reads:
Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a
treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties,
ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of
multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states,
keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary
time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the
necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

The purported High Court of Australia in the case of MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION
AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v. AH HIN TEOH F.C. (1995) (refer appendix 7) states (reference to
Justices MASON CJ AND DEANE J):
* that it is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a
party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated
into municipal law by statute; and
* that a treaty which has not been incorporated into municipal law cannot operate as a direct
source of individual rights and obligations under that law; and
* ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive government of this country to the world
and to the Australian people that the executive government and its agencies will act in accordance with the
Convention, and that positive statement is an adequate foundation for a legitimate expectation,
absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary.
In this same case, Justice McHugh states:
* that in international law, conventions are agreements between States, and Australia's ratification of the
Convention is a positive statement to other signatory nations that it intends to fulfil its obligations under that
convention, however if it does not do so, it is required to disclose its failure in its reports to the Committee
on the Rights of the Child; and
* that he is unable to agree with the view expressed by Lee J in the Full Court that the "ratification
of the Convention by the Executive was a statement to the national and international community
that the Commonwealth recognised and accepted the principles of the Convention; and
* that ratification of a treaty is not a statement to the national community, and that it is, by its very
nature, a statement to the international community.
* that the people of Australia may note the commitments of Australia in international law, but, by ratifying
the Convention, the Executive government does not give undertakings to its citizens or residents.
* that the undertakings in the Convention are given to the other parties to the Convention. How, when or
where those undertakings will be given force in Australia is a matter for the federal Parliament.
This is a basic consequence of the fact that conventions do not have the force of law within Australia.

The statements by Justices Mason, Deane and McHugh of the purported High Court clearly confirm that
there is no process or legal avenue in the purported Commonwealth of Australia where any of Australia's
Indigenous People, and other non-indigenous people can seek redress for the crime of genocide committed
against them.

The Attorney General's web page (refer appendix 8) states that the Convention on the Rights of the Child
is a multilateral United Nations human rights treaty binding under international law; that the Convention
recognises that children require particular care if they are to develop to their fullest potential and live as
responsible adults within the broader community; and that to this end the Convention sets out internationally
recognised human rights standards designed to protect and promote the rights of children.
This is just another deceptive statement to deceive the international community that the purported Commonwealth
of Australia does implement internationally recognised human rights standards, when in fact it doesn't have internal
domestic legislation to actually implement the internationally recognised human rights standards.

If one considers the AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION ACT 1989 (refer appendix 9),
section 28 confirms that Australia Post shall perform its functions in a way consistent with Australia's
obligations under any convention.
The purported government of the Commonwealth of Australia obviously attempts to choose which Treaties
/Conventions/International Agreements it wishes to abide by, however the purported government knows that
Australia Post must abide by international law under the UPU (Universal Postal Union) in Berne, Switzerland.
The UPU is an extremely significant organization formulated by international treaty, and no nation can be
recognized as a nation without being in international admiralty in order to have a forum common to all nations
for engaging in commerce and resolving disputes.

The purported government will continue to deny Australian people the international rights they are
entitled to until confronted in the international courts.
To commence legal action in an international court relating to the crime of genocide, one must exhaust all
processes and legal avenues in the purported Commonwealth of Australia however there are no processes
and legal avenues in the purported Commonwealth of Australia where one can seek redress, as
shown above in the High Court case of MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC
AFFAIRS v. AH HIN TEOH F.C. (1995).

Your attention is now turned to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) National
Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their families-
On 5 April 1997 Sir Ronald Wilson, President of the purported HREOC presented the Report on the
National Inquiry, entitled "Bringing Them Home ".
The text of this Report reads in part:
"While Australia ratified the 1948 Genocide Convention, its provisions have not been incorporated
into Australian law. The Genocide Act 1949 (C'th) merely approved ratification of the Convention
and extended its provisions to external terrirories. Australian service personnel engaged in conflicts
overseas are covered by its provisions but not those working in Australia. ... The effect of implementation would be to create a criminal offence of genocide, including attempting to commit genocide, complicity
in the crime of genocide and inciting others to commit genocide. Effective penalties would have to be provided. Implementation would establish a right to compensation for victims of genocide.

Compensation to the indigenous Peoples of Australia, if successful, would run into the billions of dollars.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), at web page http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/nt_issues/failure.html (refer appendix 10) contains a statement
under 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice', reading in part:
Failure to implement the Genocide Convention:-
While Australia is a signatory to the 1949 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, successive governments have not enshrined this law domestically.
'Bringing Them Home' recommended that the Commonwealth Government legislate to implement
the Genocide Convention with full domestic effect as part of official recognition that removal
policies of the past are over and will not be repeated. In response, the Commonwealth Government
claimed that no genocide occurred in Australia, so therefore there was no need to implement the Convention.

This last statement by the purported government that no genocide occurred in Australia is a deliberate lie.
It is a statement in an attempt to avoid massive compensation claims.

Another point worth raising is that past purported Australian government refused to ratify the C107 Indigenous
and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (UN) (refer appendix 11).
The text of this Convention reads in part:
Convention concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and
Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries
Convention:C107
Place:Geneva
Session of the Conference:40
Date of adoption:26:06:1957
Subject classification: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
Subject: Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,
Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and
having met in its Fortieth Session on 5 June 1957, and .......
PART II. LAND
Article 11
The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over
the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised.

Take away Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' lands, as is most common in Australia, and you have a process where the
People can be calculatedly destroyed.

Conclusion
There is no process or legal avenue in the purported Commonwealth of Australia where Australia's
Indigenous People can seek redress and compensation for the crime of genocide committed
against them. The only process or legal avenue for redress is in the International Courts.

Part 3. General comments on 'indicators' found in CERD's
decision concerning the prevention of genocide.
My emphasis in bold, and with comments in red.

Refer http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.67.Misc.8.pdf
CERD (Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) has identified fifteen indicators plus
related follow-up procedures to help detect and prevent at the earliest possible stage developments
in racial discrimination that may lead to violent conflict and genocide.

CERD, 67th Session
CERD/C/67/Misc.8, 19th August 2005
DECISION ON:
FOLLOW UP PROCEDURE TO THE DECLARATION ON PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE
INDICATORS OF SYSTEMATIC AND MASSIVE PATTERNS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

At its sixty-sixth session the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination adopted the Declaration
on Prevention of Genocide for the consideration of the States Parties to the Convention on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, the UN Secretary General and his Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide
as well as the Security Council. In this declaration, the Committee committed itself to (1) developing a
special set of indicators related to genocide, and (2) strengthening and refining its early warning and urgent
action as well as follow-up procedures in all situations where indicators suggest the increased possibility of
violent conflict and genocide.
Taking into account that systematic discrimination, disregard or exclusion are often among the root causes
of conflict, the present decision intends to strengthen the capacity of the Committee to detect and prevent
at the earliest possible stage developments in racial discrimination that may lead to violent conflict and genocide.

1. Indicators:
The following key indicators may serve as a tool for the Committee when examining the situation in a State
party under one of its procedures to assess the existence of factors known to be important components
of situations leading to conflict and genocide. If one or more of the following indicators are present, this
should be clearly stated in the concluding observations or decision, and the Committee shall recommend
that the State party within a fixed deadline report to the Committee under the follow-up procedure as to
what it intends to do to ameliorate the situation.
In the following list of indicators, the word "group"shall cover racial, ethnic and religious groups.
1. Lack of a legislative framework and institutions to prevent racial discrimination and provide recourse
to victims of discrimination;
[Comment:- The purported Commonwealth of Australia has legislative framework and institutions to prevent racial discrimination and provide recourse for victims of discrimination, however few Indigenous victims receive recourse,
and to add difficulty, some legislation is deceptively racially discriminate towards Indigenous people.
Examples: The Native Title Act 1993 is racially discriminate; and the Commonwealth HREOC (Human Rights
& Equal Opportunity Commission) is a government controlled commission to perpetuate the myth to the
international community that it is there to provide remedy to victims of racial discrimination. ]
2. Systematic official denial of the existence of particular distinct groups;
[Comment:- The purported Queensland government systematically denies the existence of the Dalungbara
Aboriginal People. This purported government also claims ownership of the property of the Dalungbara Aboriginal
as its value is estimated in the billions of dollars. The Dalungbara Aboriginal People are also prevented from
exercising their rights and enjoyment of their property. This is a criminal offence to which there is no remedy
inside Australia. International support is urgently needed.
Other Aboriginal Peoples also systematically suffer similar criminal abuses.]
3. The systematic exclusion – in law or in fact – of groups from positions of power, employment in State
institutions and key professions such as teachers, judges and police;
4. Compulsory identification against the will of members of particular groups including the use of identity
cards indicating ethnicity;
5. Grossly biased versions of historical events in school text books and other education materials as well
as celebration of historical events which exacerbate tensions between groups and peoples;
[Comment:- Many school text books and other education materials purposely conceal the truth about the acts
of genocideand abuse of human rights, (past and present) towards Australia's Indigenous Peoples.
The celebration of 'Australia Day' exacerbates (aggravates and irritates) many Indigenous people.]
6. Policies of forced removal of children belonging to ethnic minorities with the purpose of complete assimilation;
7. Policies of segregation, direct and indirect, for example separate schools and housing areas;
8. Systematic and widespread use and acceptance of speech or propaganda promoting hatred and/or inciting
violence against minority groups, particularly in the media;
9. Grave statements by political leaders/prominent people that express support for affirmation of superiority
of a race or an ethnic, dehumanization and demonisation of minorities, or condone or justify violence against
a minority;
10. Violence or severe restrictions targeting minority groups perceived to have traditionally maintained a
prominent position, for example as business elites or in political life and State institutions;
[Comment:- Severe restrictions on the use of land/property of Aborigines.]
11. Serious patterns of individual attacks on members of minorities by private citizens which appear to be
principally motivated by the victim’s membership of that group;
12. Development and organization of militia groups and/or extreme political groups based on a racist platform;
13. Significant flows of refugees and internally displaced persons, especially when those concerned belong
to specific ethnic or religious groups;
14. Significant disparities in socio-economic indicators evidencing a pattern of serious racial discrimination;
[Comment:- Indigenous people have a shorter life expectancy than non-indigenous people.]
15. Policies aimed at the prevention of delivery of essential services or assistance including obstruction for
aid delivery, access to food, water, sanitation or essential medical supplies in certain regions or targeting
specific groups.

As these indicators may be present in States not moving towards violence or genocide, the assessment of
their significance for the purpose of predicting genocide or violence against identifiable racial, ethnic or
religious groups should be supplemented by consideration of the following subset of general indicators:
1. Prior history of genocide or violence against a group;
[Comment:- Genocide of Australia's Indigenous people has been ocurring since 'white' incursion.]
2. Policy or practice of impunity;
[Comment:- Impunity (the exemption from punishment or loss) is often evidenced when comparing the court
sentences that Indigenous people receive (with often harsher penalties) when compared to similar sentences
of non-indigenous people.]
3. Existence of pro-active communities abroad fostering extremism and/or providing arms;
4. Presence of external mitigating factors such as the UN or other recognised invited third parties.

2. Follow-up and early warning and urgent action procedures:
When receiving information in between sessions of CERD about grave incidents of racial discrimination
covered by one or more of the ICERD relevant indicators, the Chairperson of the working group on
early warning/urgent action in consultation with its members and with the follow-up coordinator and
the Chairperson of the Committee, may take the following action:
• Request further urgent information from the State party;
[ Comment- The State party of Australia would of course deny and distort the facts so information would
also have to be obtained from non-government organisations]
• Forward the information to the Secretary General and his Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide;
• Prepare a decision to be submitted for adoption by the Committee at its next session;
• Adopt a decision in the session in the light of the most recent developments and action taken by other
international organizations.

The text of this Convention reads:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war,
is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy,
in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished,
whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Article 5
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the
necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to
provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a
competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such
international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties
which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
Article 7
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for
the purpose of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant
extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.
Article 8
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such
action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and
suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.
Article 9
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of
the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any
of the other acts enumerated in Article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice
at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
Article 10
The present Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are
equally authentic, shall bear the date of 9 December 1948.
Article 11
The present Convention shall be open until 31 December 1949 for signature on behalf of any
Member of the United Nations and of any non-member State to which an invitation to sign has
been addressed by the General Assembly.
The present Convention shall be ratified, and the instruments of ratification shall be deposited
with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
After 1 January 1950, the present Convention may be acceded to on behalf of any Member of the
United Nations and of any non-member State which has received an invitation as aforesaid.
Instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 12
Any Contracting Party may at any time, by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, extend the application of the present Convention to all or any of the territories for
the conduct of whose foreign relations that Contracting Party is responsible.
Article 13
On the day when the first twenty instruments of ratification or accession have been deposited, the
Secretary-General shall draw up a proces-verbal and transmit a copy of it to each Member of the
United Nations and to each of the non-member States contemplated in Article 11.
The present Convention shall come into force on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of
the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date shall become effective on the
ninetieth day following the deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 14
The present Convention shall remain in effect for a period of ten years as from the date of its coming into force.
It shall thereafter remain in force for successive periods of five years for such Contracting Parties as
have not denounced it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.
Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 15
If, as a result of denunciations, the number of Parties to the present Convention should become less than
sixteen, the Convention shall cease to be in force as from the date on which the last of these denunciations
shall become effective.
Article 16
A request for the revision of the present Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party
by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General.
The General Assembly shall decide upon the steps, if any, to be taken in respect of such request.
Article 17
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall notify all Members of the United Nations and the
non-member States contemplated in Article 11 of the following:
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions received in accordance with Article 11;
(b) Notifications received in accordance with Article 12;
(c) The date upon which the present Convention comes into force in accordance with Article 13;
(d) Denunciations received in accordance with Article 14;
(e) The abrogation of the Convention in accordance with Article 15;
(f) Notifications received in accordance with Article 16.
Article 18
The original of the present Convention shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
A certified copy of the Convention shall be transmitted to all Members of the United Nations
and to the non-member States contemplated in Article 11.
Article 19
The present Convention shall be registered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on
the date of its coming into force.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 2
The ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

This Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002.
The text of this Statute reads in part:

ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Article 1
The Court
An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and
shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international
concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.
The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

Article 4
Legal status and powers of the Court
1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be
necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes.
2. The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party
and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international
community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression. ..........................

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed
as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual
violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious,
gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international
law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to
mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission
of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or
organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food
and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person
and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by
expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under
international law;
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person
in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising
only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of
affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law.
This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law
by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1,
committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial
group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
3. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term "gender" refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term "gender" does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

Article 17
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is
unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to
prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State
genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial
by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the
principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:
(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding
the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;
(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an
intent to bring the person concerned to justice;
(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being
conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.
3. In order to determine inability in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether, due to a total or substantial
collapse or unavailability of its national judicial system, the State is unable to obtain the accused or the necessary
evidence and testimony or otherwise unable to carry out its proceedings.

Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and
liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for
a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless
of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its
commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of
persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such
activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a
substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's
intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the
completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit
that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of
States under international law.

Article 29
Non-applicability of statute of limitations
The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments,
have signed this Statute.
DONE at Rome, this 17th day of July 1998.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 3
GENOCIDE CONVENTION ACT 1949 (purported Commonwealth of Australia)

Act No. 27, 1949; assented to and commenced 12 July 1949
The text of this purported Act reads in part:
GENOCIDE CONVENTION ACT 1949 (Commonwealth)
An Act to approve of Ratification by Australia of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and for other purposes.
SECT. 1. Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Genocide Convention Act 1949.
SECT. 2. Commencement.
2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
SECT. 3. Definition.
3. In this Act- ''the Genocide Convention'' means the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations at Paris on the ninth
day of December, One thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, the text of which convention in
the English language is set out in the Schedule to this Act.
SECT. 4. Approval of ratification.
4. Approval is hereby given to the depositing with the Secretary-General of the United Nations
of an instrument of ratification of the Genocide Convention by Australia.
SECT. 5. Approval of extension to Territories.
5. Approval is hereby given to the depositing with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of a
notification by Australia, in accordance with Article twelve of the Genocide Convention, extending
the application of the Genocide Convention to all the territories for the conduct of whose foreign
relations Australia is responsible.
SCHEDULE
[ Note: the text of the schedule is the official English text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment
of Genocide ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 4
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (United Nations)

Signed at Vienna 23 May 1969; Entry into force 27 January 1980.
Ratified by purported Commonwealth of Ausrtalia 23 May 1969.

The text of this Convention reads in part:
Article 2 - Use of Terms:
1. For the purposes of the present Convention:
(a) "treaty" means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments
and whatever its particular designation;
(b) "ratification", "acceptance", "approval" and "accession" mean in each case the international act so
named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

Article 6 - Capacity of States to conclude treaties
Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties.

Article 11 - Means of expressing consent to be bound by a treaty
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments
constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.

Article 27 - Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

Article 46 - Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties
1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed
in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating
its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental
importance.
2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in
accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 5
The Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 (purported Commonwealth of Australia)

The text of this purported Bill reads in part:
1998-99
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
THE SENATE
Presented and read a first time
Anti-Genocide Bill 1999
No. , 1999
(Senator Greig)
A Bill for an Act to give effect to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, and for related purposes.

i Anti-Genocide Bill 1999 No. , 1999

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 6
The United Nations Treaty Collection - Treaty Reference Guide

(From the web site)
The text of this Treaty Collection reads in part:
Definition of key terms used in the UN Treaty Collection
Introduction
This introductory note seeks to provide a basic - but not an exhaustive - overview of the key terms
employed in the United Nations Treaty Collection to refer to international instruments binding at
international law: treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda
of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes. The purpose is to facilitate a general
understanding of their scope and function. ...
.... Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international
law has applied basically the same rules to all of these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice
among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore,
they are regarded as international customary law. Since there was a general desire to codify these
customary rules, two international conventions were negotiated. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties ("1969 Vienna Convention"), which entered into force on 27 January 1980, contains rules for treaties
concluded between States.

Treaties
(a) ...... The 1969 Vienna Convention defines a treaty as "an international agreement concluded
between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular delegation".

Glossary of terms relating to Treaty actions
18. Ratification
Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a
treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties,
ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral
treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties
informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the
required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 7
Purported High Court of Australia
MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS v. AH HIN TEOH F.C.

No. 95/013 (1995) 128 ALR 353, (1995) 69 ALJR 423, (1995) EOC 92-696 (extract), (1995)
183 CLR 273 International Law - Immigration

The text of this purported judgement reads in part:
COURT
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
MASON CJ(1), DEANE(1), TOOHEY(2), GAUDRON(3) AND McHUGH(4) JJ
HRNG
PERTH, 1994, 24, 25 October, CANBERRA, 1995, 7 April
#DATE 7:4:1995
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.

JUDGE1
MASON CJ AND DEANE J
This appeal, which is brought by the Minister from a unanimous decision of the Full Federal Court (Black CJ,
Lee and Carr JJ) allowing an appeal by the respondent from a decision of French J, raises an important
question concerning the relationship between international law and Australian law. ........

The status of the Convention in Australian law

25. It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party
do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our
municipal law by statute(4). This principle has its foundation in the proposition that in our constitutional
system the making and ratification of treaties fall within the province of the Executive in the exercise of its
prerogative power whereas the making and the alteration of the law fall within the province of Parliament, not
the Executive(5). So, a treaty which has not been incorporated into our municipal law cannot operate
as a direct source of individual rights and obligations under that law. In this case, it is common ground
that the provisions of the Convention have not been incorporated in this way. It is not suggested that the
declaration made pursuant to s.47(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act has this effect.

The Full Court's use of the Convention as a foundation for a legitimate expectation and the creation
of an obligation to initiate inquiries and reports in conjunction with procedural fairness

34. Junior counsel for the appellant contended that a convention ratified by Australia but not incorporated into
our law could never give rise to a legitimate expectation. No persuasive reason was offered to support this
far-reaching proposition. The fact that the provisions of the Convention do not form part of our law are a less
than compelling reason - legitimate expectations are not equated to rules or principles of law. Moreover,
ratification by Australia of an international convention is not to be dismissed as a merely platitudinous
or ineffectual act(17), particularly when the instrument evidences internationally accepted standards
to be applied by courts and administrative authorities in dealing with basic human rights affecting
the family and children. Rather, ratification of a convention is a positive statement by the executive
government of this country to the world and to the Australian people that the executive government
and its agencies will act in accordance with the Convention. That positive statement is an adequate
foundation for a legitimate expectation, absent statutory or executive indications to the contrary, that
administrative decision-makers will act in conformity with the Convention(18) and treat the best interests of the
children as "a primary consideration". It is not necessary that a person seeking to set up such a legitimate
expectation should be aware of the Convention or should personally entertain the expectation; it is enough
that the expectation is reasonable in the sense that there are adequate materials to support it.

JUDGE4
McHUGH J

The terms of the Convention did not give rise to a legitimate expectation in this case

37. In international law, conventions are agreements between States. Australia's ratification of the
Convention is a positive statement to other signatory nations that it intends to fulfil its obligations
under that convention. If it does not do so, it is required to disclose its failure in its reports to the
Committee on the Rights of the Child(71). I am unable to agree with the view expressed by Lee J
in the Full Court that the "ratification of the Convention by the Executive was a statement to the
national and international community that the Commonwealth recognised and accepted the
principles of the Convention"(72) (my emphasis). The ratification of a treaty is not a statement
to the national community. It is, by its very nature, a statement to the international community.
The people of Australia may note the commitments of Australia in international law, but, by
ratifying the Convention, the Executive government does not give undertakings to its citizens
or residents. The undertakings in the Convention are given to the other parties to the Convention. How,
when or where those undertakings will be given force in Australia is a matter for the federal Parliament.
This is a basic consequence of the fact that conventions do not have the force of law within Australia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appendix 8
Attorney General's web page - Australia's Reports under Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (purported Commonwealth of Australia).

Refer web page http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/Department/Publications/publications/CROCReports/intro.html

The text of this web page reads in part:
Introduction
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is a multilateral United Nations human rights treaty binding
under international law. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November 1989 and
entered into force internationally on 2 September 1990. Australia ratified the Convention on 17 December 1990
and it entered into force for Australia on 16 January 1991.
The Convention recognises that children require particular care if they are to develop to their fullest potential
and live as responsible adults within the broader community. To this end the Convention sets out internationally
recognised human rights standards designed to protect and promote the rights of children.

Refer below for a 'reduced in size' screen shot of this web page: