How Covid injections violate the rule of humanitarian law

For those following the critical covid debate and some of the people who were injured by the experimental injections it is apparent something was obviously terribly wrong with the Covid information given to the public. In Sweden, for example, the government made a temporary Covid act where they “miscaculated” the severity of the Sars-Cov-2 virus by 1000%. There was no science behind lockdowns or social distancing programs. The PCR-test has been debunked in court (Switzerland and Portugal) as not trustworthy for diagnosing Covid-19. Some time ago in an interwiew between the lawyer Reiner Fuellmich and Calin Georgescu (Former president of the Club of Rome of Europe and Former Executive Director of the United Nations) it was explained Covid was actually planned for 2016 - we should have been talkning Covid-16 instead of 19. The fact that Donald Trump became president back then disrupted the globalists plan for the virus outbreak. From independent Covid summits and alternative media worldwide Covid is explained as war on humanity. The bioweaponised Sars-Cov-2 makes it a warcrime unleashed on the worlds populations. The experimental covid injections do not create immunity - instead they make the body create a very dangerous toxin - the spikeprotein. The injections have already been declared, reported and explained scientifically and legally as bioweapons in different parts of the world. Patents from the USA declare the experimental injections as a weaponisation. Several different states in the USA have confirmed the experimental covid injections meet the criteria of biological and technological weapons and have banned them already. These facts have been reported on various Patientmakt posts before.

Dr. Boyle is considered one of the world’s leading legal experts on biological weapons and he drafted the US Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act (“the Act”), which was passed into law in 1989 to implement the Biological Weapons Convention to criminalize the development, production, and possession of biological weapons.

In his affidavit for Dr. Sansone’s case, Dr. Boyle stated that COVID injections violate the Act. He asserted that “covid-19 injections,” “covid-19 nanoparticle injections,” and “mRNA nanoparticle injections” are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction which violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).

I am Francis A. Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. I received an AB (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a JD degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and AM and PhD degrees in Political Science from Harvard University.

I have advised numerous international bodies in the areas of human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy, and bio-warfare.

The reporting of Covid injection injuries is flawed and has been deliberately suppressed by a variety of means by threatening healthcare workers they will lose their job or be reported to the security police if they enourage the reporting. I mean, that has nothing to do with how a democratic society should be functioning. In Denmark it was recently uncovered their health authority do not want to take responsibility for the covid injection injured - they are just to be left as they are. Not long ago in France the chairman of the Covid injection injured patientassociation was brutally arrested by 15 armed security police early in the moring. The chairman of the french association was arrested for having a message on his answering machine at home asking when the french president would tend to the Covid injection injured in France. In Spain, the Spanish government recognizes the link between the covid injection and myocarditis, but the Spanish Ministry of Health disclaims all responsibility

Dr. David Martin explains why the COVID shots are actually bioweapons, not vaccines.

• Pfizer BioNTech and Moderna explicitly described mRNA as an experimental gene therapy in their SEC filings.

• Coronavirus fragments were described as “bio-warfare enabling technology” at a 2005 DARPA conference.

• According to 7 CFR Part 331, the spike protein associated with any modification of coronavirus is classified as a biological weapon.

• The injections instruct the human body to manufacture a scheduled toxin (spike protein). truth4ourfreedom, Tumblr

Dr. Mercola quoted a Wise Traditions podcast back in 2021 where David Martin explains what is going on - I will reshare it here - we need to remember what was actually done to not fall prey to these kind of official lies in the future.

"COVID-19 is not a disease. It is a series of clinical symptoms. It is a giant umbrella of things associated with what used to be associated with influenza and with other febrile diseases.

The problem that we have is that in February [2020], the World Health Organization was clear in stating that there should not be a conflation between [SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19]. One is a virus, in their definition, and one is a set of clinical symptoms. The illusion in February was that SARS-CoV-2 caused COVID-19.

The problem with that definition, and with the expectation, is that the majority of people who test positive using the RT-PCR method for testing, for fragments of what is associated with SARS-CoV-2, are not ill at all. The illusion that the virus causes a disease fell apart. That's the reason why they invented the term asymptomatic carrier."

In short, SARS-CoV-2 has yet to be definitively proven to be the actual cause of COVID-19. So, a gene therapy that instructs your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 antigen — the viral spike protein — cannot even be touted as a preventative against COVID-19, as the two have not been shown to be causally linked.

"They have been willfully lying since the inception of this," Martin says in the interview. "There is not a causal link between these things … It has never even been close to established.

We have a situation where the illusion of the problem is that people say, 'I don't want to get COVID-19.' What they mean is they don't want to get infected with a virus. The problem is those two things are not related to each other. A viral infection hasn't been documented in the majority of what is called cases.

There is no basis for that conflation other than the manipulation of the public. That's the first half of the problem. The second half of the problem is that what is being touted as a vaccination … is not a vaccine. This is gene therapy …

What is this doing? It's sending a strand of synthetic RNA into the human being and is invoking within the human being, the creation of the S1 spike protein, which is a pathogen … A vaccine is supposed to trigger immunity. It's not supposed to trigger you to make a toxin …

It's not somewhat different. It's not the same at all … It's not a prohibiting infection. It's not a prohibiting transmission device. It's a means by which your body is conscripted to make the toxin that then, allegedly, your body somehow gets used to dealing with, but unlike a vaccine — which is to trigger the immune response — this is to trigger the creation of the toxin."

Violations of human rights often have serious medical consequences and physicians can be particularly helpful. They can use their clinical skills or deploy the analytical frame of epidemiology and public health to document the nature and impact of injuries created by human rights abuses,^5–10 supply expert testimony,²² and advocate on behalf of those who have suffered.²³ Further, doctors should recognise the range of torture and repression in state systems²⁴ and be vigilant about policing their own guild lest some members use their medical skills in state sponsored violations of human rights.^25–27 The discourses of international humanitarian law and human rights, once thought to be entirely separate—one for war and the other for peace— are also now seen to overlap.²⁸ Current legal analyses of war and conflict allow for applying core human rights law as well as international humanitarian law. Jennifer Leaning

In light of this I find it of importance to share an analyis by Marco Saba (published in Freedom in Law) showing the experimental Covid bioweapon injections are illegal weapons. After the notes below you can read pathology reporting on how the spikeproteins from these Covid injections destroy organs.

“Background: from Dec. 27, 2020 to May 5, 2023, WHO instructed a global experimental campaign called "vaccination" as part of Operation Pandemic Covid-19, which involved the forced inoculation of "anti-COVID" gene serums. After 24 million excess deaths ascertained globally, the sovereign people are demanding that all those responsible for the campaign that turned out to be disastrous in health, economic and political terms be tried in court. The identified perpetrators could resort to the expedient of declaring that it was a real "war" in which weapons-named "vaccines"-could be legally used. The present article refutes this attempt.

Anti-COVID Gene Serums can be considered illegal weapons because they violate the principles of humanitarian law. According to the rule of three limitations applicable to all weapons in war, to be legal weapons must:

1) Be directed against legitimate military targets

2) Have proportionate side effects

3) Meet ethical standards for human experimentation.

Anti-COVID Gene Sera do not meet these criteria:

1) They are injected indiscriminately into the civilian population, not against military targets.

2) Severe and lethal side effects on large sections of the population, including children, cannot be considered proportionate.

3) Forced inoculation methods violate the standards required for medical experiments by failing to comply with wartime uses.

In addition to the previous reasons, Anti-COVID Gene Serums:  cannot be contained in the 'legal battlefields'  continue to act even after the end of hostilities  Are inhumane in the way they can kill and harm  can have long-term negative impacts on the environment.

A weapon is made illegal in two ways:

(1) With the adoption of a specific treaty prohibiting it; and

(2) because it cannot be used without violating existing law and customs of war.

A weapon made illegal only because there is a specific treaty prohibiting it is illegal only for countries that ratify that treaty. A weapon made illegal by existing law is illegal for all countries. This is true even if there is a treaty on this weapon and a country has not ratified it. Since there is no specific treaty banning Anti- COVID Gene Serums, their illegality must be established in the second way.

The laws and customs of war (humanitarian law) include all treaties governing military operations, weapons, and the protection of war victims, as well as all customary international law on these subjects. [2] In other words, to assess whether a particular weapon is legal or illegal in the absence of a specific treaty, the entire body of humanitarian law must be consulted. [3]

There are four rules derived from the entire humanitarian law on arms:

(A) Weapons can only be used in the legal battlefield, defined as legal military objectives of the enemy in war. Weapons cannot have an adverse effect outside the legal battlefield. (The "territorial" test).

(B) Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the end of the war violates this criterion. (The "temporal" test).[4]

(C) Weapons cannot be unduly inhumane. (The "humanity" test). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 use the terms "unnecessary suffering" and "unnecessary injury" for this concept. [5]

(D) Weapons cannot have an unduly adverse effect on the natural environment. (The "environmental" test).

Anti-COVID Gene Serums fail all four tests.

(a) They cannot be "contained" in legal battlefields and therefore do not pass the territorial test. In contrast, Anti-COVID Gene Serums are inoculated away from legal targets and reach illegal (civilian) targets: hospital staff, school staff, jurists, children, youth, adults and the elderly in general, and even uniformed personnel with whom the pharmaceutical industries are not at war.

(b) They cannot be "inactivated" when the war (COVID campaign) is over. In fact, Anti-COVID Gene Serums continue to act even after the end of hostilities and thus fail the time test. Even with strict care of personnel in war zones (COVID campaign), particles inoculated into the body can continue to kill and harm military and civilians long after the war is over (COVID campaign).

(c) They are inhumane and therefore fail the humanity test. Anti- COVID Gene Serums are inhumane because of the way they can kill -- immunosuppression, myocarditis, cancer, neurological diseases, etc. -- and also long after the end of hostilities, when sudden premature deaths should stop. Anti-COVID Gene Serums are inhumane because they can cause infertility, miscarriages, birth defects (genetic), side effects from breastfeeding from serous mothers, thus affecting children who can never be a military target and who are born even after the end of the war (COVID campaign). The teratogenic nature of Anti-COVID Gene Serums and the possible burdening of the gene pool of future generations suggest that the use of Anti-COVID Gene Serums is genocidal.

(d) They cannot be disposed of without unduly harming the natural environment with their nanoparticles and therefore fail the environmental test. Damage to the natural environment includes contamination of water and agricultural land necessary for the subsistence of the civilian population well beyond the lifespan of that population. Reclamation is an inexact science and, in any case, extremely expensive, far beyond the spending power of a poor country.

One of the most useful provisions of treaty-based humanitarian law is the "Martens Clause" of the 1907 Hague Convention, repeated in subsequent humanitarian law treaties. The Martens Clause states that in situations where there is no specific treaty provision (such as in the case of Anti-COVID Gene Serums), the international community is nonetheless bound by "the rules of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the established usages among civilized peoples, the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience."[6] There is a huge international "NO-VAX" effort by a wide range of groups representing every aspect of civil society. The existence of the network against Anti- COVID Gene Serums is legally relevant to the finding of the illegality of Anti-COVID Gene Serums and strengthens the arguments that the use of Anti-COVID Gene Serums is a war crime or a crime against humanity, and can play a decisive role in stopping the proliferation of these gene weapons. All of this demonstrates how Anti-COVID Gene Serums, while not prohibited by specific treaties, violate general principles of humanitarian law and in particular the rule of three limitations. Therefore, they must be considered illegal weapons.

One of the most useful provisions of treaty-based humanitarian law is the "Martens Clause" of the 1907 Hague Convention, repeated in subsequent humanitarian law treaties. The Martens Clause states that in situations where there is no specific treaty provision (such as in the case of Anti-COVID Gene Serums), the international community is nonetheless bound by "the rules of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the established usages among civilized peoples, the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience."[6] There is a huge international "NO-VAX" effort by a wide range of groups representing every aspect of civil society. The existence of the network against Anti- COVID Gene Serums is legally relevant to the finding of the illegality of Anti-COVID Gene Serums and strengthens the arguments that the use of Anti-COVID Gene Serums is a war crime or a crime against humanity, and can play a decisive role in stopping the proliferation of these gene weapons. All of this demonstrates how Anti-COVID Gene Serums, while not prohibited by specific treaties, violate general principles of humanitarian law and in particular the rule of three limitations. Therefore, they must be considered illegal weapons.

A multilateral discussion is desirable to impartially reconsider the development and use of genetic vaccines according to international standards that respect their potential utility, in parallel with the need to withdraw those currently distributed.”

Notes:

1] This brief is inspired by U.S. attorney Karen Parker's work on uranium weapons, "The Illegality of DU Weaponry" (2003): https://guidetoaction.org/parker/duweaponry2003.pdf

2] Customary international law, which includes: Hague law (governing military operations) and Geneva law (governing protected parties in time of war) is binding on all countries. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently upheld the binding nature of customary law, including customary humanitarian law. All international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, reflects the binding nature of customary law.

3] In 1996, the International Court of Justice, in the "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" case, ruled that all weapons must be evaluated according to the criteria of humanitarian law, but it does not state what those criteria are. I wrote this article based on Karen Parker's memorandum to make explicit the criteria that had not yet been fully extracted from humanitarian law.

4] The first two tests ("territorial" and "temporal") together constitute the rule that weapons should not be "indiscriminate."

5] Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention, Regulations. This article also prohibits "poisonous or poisoned weapons." Some might argue that Anti-COVID Gene Serums are necessarily poisonous, and therefore directly prohibited by Article 23.

6] The 1907 Hague Convention, 8th paragraph preamble. The "Martens" clause (named after the Russian scholar who formulated it) is repeated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions. The United States is a party to the Hague Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1942 case (Ex Parte Quirin), ruled that this clause is U.S. law. This principle applies only to humanitarian (armed conflict) law, not human rights law, although the latter is evolving in this direction. For example, the International Court of Justice, in the Corfu Channel, ruled that 'elementary considerations of humanity [are] even more to be demanded in peace than in war' (1949)." (1949 Report of the International Court of Justice, p. 22).

• You can catch up on pathology reports on how the spikeprotein from the Covid injections destroy human organs from here: