ΚΑΤΑΓΓΕΛΙΕΣ ΣΤΟ ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΠΟΙΝΙΚΟ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΙΟ ΤΗΣ ΧΑΓΗΣ / The appeals in chronological order
1) Γεριτσίδου A και Γεριτσίδου B (Yeritsidou & Geritsidou)
2) Σαλεμή (Salemi -supported by 25 people)
3) Τράγκας ,Κωνσταντάρας, Τζένος και Πρέκας (Tragkas, Konstantaras, Tzenos, Prekas)
5) Κουίκ ( Kouik) – Αίτηση προς τον υπουργό δικαιοσύνης
6) δεν έχω άδεια δημοσίευσης της
Επιστολή Δάλμαρη στον Πρόεδρο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου: Καταγγελία, κατά της Ε.Ε. και της Γερμανίας και κατά παντός υπευθύνου για εγκλήματα κατά της Ελλάδος και της Ανθρωπότητος. 10/01/2014
Σχετικά/ Related :
– petition to the Prosecutor of the ICC ( Ηλεκτρονικό αίτημα Προς τον Εισαγγελέα του Διεθνούς Ποινικού Δικαστηρίου (ICC): ΣΩΣΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΛΛΑΔΑ !)
– Appeal to the English speaking Greek population for testimonies –> Έκκληση στον ελληνικό πληθυσμό για μαρτυρίες
– Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing: Δεύτερη Έκκληση στον Ελληνικό λαό για μαρτυρικές καταθέσεις [Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing: Second Appeal to the Greek population for testimonies], Γερμανός καλεί Έλληνες να καταθέσουν τις μαρτυρίες τους στο Διεθνές Ποινικό Δικαστήριο (βίντεο)
– Έκθεση του ΟΗΕ για την καταπάτηση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Ελλάδα
– Επιστολή του Θεοδώρου Δάλμαρη προς τον Πρόεδρο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου ΘΕΜΑ: Καταγγελία, κατά της Ε.Ε. και της Γερμανίας και κατά παντός υπευθύνου για εγκλήματα κατά της Ελλάδος και της Ανθρωπότητος.
– Ο κρητικός γιατρός που σόκαρε το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο με τα λόγια και τις φωτογραφίες του 14.03.2014
Διευκρίνιση : Οι καταγγελίες αφορούν εγκλήματα κατά της ανθρωπότητας και γενοκτονίας των Ελλήνων. Η υπόθεση είναι μια και μοναδική και οι διαδικασίες ενεργοποιούνται αυτεπάγγελτα από τον εισαγγελέα του ΔΠΔ αν έχει ενδείξεις τέλεσης των εγκλημάτων αυτών.
Άρθρο 15. (του Καταστατικόυ της Ρώμης)
1. Ο Εισαγγελέας μπορεί να αρχίσει έρευνα αυτεπαγγέλτως επί τη βάσει πληροφοριών για εγκλήματα υπαγόμενα στη δικαιοδοσία του Δικαστηρίου.
2. Ο Εισαγγελέας εξετάζει τη σοβαρότητα των πληροφοριών που έλαβε. Για το σκοπό αυτό. δύναται να αναζητήσει επί πλέον πληροφορίες από Κράτη, όργανα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών, διακυβερνητικές ή μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, ή άλλες αξιόπιστες πηγές τις οποίες κρίνει κατάλληλες, και δύναται να λαμβάνει γραπτές ή προφορικές καταθέσεις στην έδρα του Δικαστηρίου.
3. Αν ο Εισαγγελέας συμπεράνει ότι υπάρχει επαρκής βάση για να αρχίσει έρευνα, υποβάλει αίτημα στο Τμήμα Προδικασίας για να επιτραπεί η έρευνα, μαζί με οποιαδήποτε στοιχεία που στηρίζουν το αίτημα. Τα θύματα μπορούν να κάνουν παραστάσεις στο Τμήμα Προδικασίας σύμφωνα με τους Κανόνες Διαδικασίας και Απόδειξης.
4. Αν το Τμήμα Προδικασίας, μετά από εξέταση του αιτήματος και του υλικού που το στηρίζει, θεωρήσει ότι υπάρχει επαρκής βάση για να αρχίσει έρευνα, και ότι η υπόθεση φαίνεται να υπάγεται στη δικαιοδοσία του Δικαστηρίου, επιτρέπει την έναρξη της έρευνας, άνευ βλάβης των μετέπειτα αποφάσεων του Δικαστηρίου σχετικά με τη δικαιοδοσία και το παραδεκτό της υπόθεσης.
2 September 2011
GREECE: A financial genocide
By Günter Tews
Are the Greeks not sufficiently keen on saving? A Viennese lawyer living in Athens has observed the daily life of the Greeks and come to the conclusion: they save to death. Günter Tews The loose talk coming from the highest politicians all across Europe about the “lazy” and “spendthrift” Greeks, some of which chatter can hardly be surpassed for stupidity, cannot go unchallenged. For the last 16 months I have had a second home in Athens and have witnessed the dramatic situation on the ground.
A common complaint is that the austerity plan will never catch on because tax revenues are falling, and the willingness of the Greeks to cut back is being called into question. Surprise, surprise! Well, here are a few facts: • Pay cuts and pension cuts of up to 30 percent. • Minimum wage sinking to 600 euros per month. • Dramatic price hikes in the last 15 months (100 percent for fuel oil and petrol, 50 percent for electricity, heating, gas, public transport). • One third of the country’s 165,000 commercial firms shut down; a third can no longer pay wages. In Athens, thousands of yellow signs with “Enoikiazetai” – “For Rent” – in red letters. • In the midst of this calamity, consumption (the Greek economy was always strongly consumer-oriented) has caved in dramatically. Double-earners, those who used to bring home 4,000 euros to their families, have suddenly been reduced to 400 euros each in unemployment benefits, which are paid out only after a delay of several months. • State officials or officials in quasi-state enterprises, such as Olympic Airlines or hospitals, have been getting no salary for months and are being put off until October – or “next year”.
The record is currently held by the Ministry of Culture, where many employees who worked on the Acropolis have not been paid a salary for 22 months. As they protested this (peacefully!) in a demonstration that closed off the Acropolis, they were promptly provided for in abundance – but only in tear gas. • The billions of euros in tranches from the EU actually flow back immediately into the EU – reportedly, 97 percent of it – as annual loan repayment instalments to the banks and as new interest charges. The burden will thus be gradually passed down to the European taxpayer. Until the crash the banks will continue to receive hefty interest payments, and they will write off the debts at the expense of the taxpayer. Money for structural reforms has not yet been found. • Thousands of independent truck and taxi drivers had to pay tens of thousands of euros for their licences, for which they took out loans, and now find themselves in the new climate of deregulation, in which new drivers need pay hardly any licence fees; the older drivers, however, are still saddled with their large loans and must pay them off. • New fees have been invented; to report an offence to the police, 150 euros are due immediately. The victim has to pay up before a complaint is even recorded.
On the other hand, police have to pool their private money to buy petrol for the police cars. • A new property tax on dwellings will be introduced and will be levied via the electricity bill. Those who do not pay will have their power cut off. • There have been no textbooks in the public education system for months, since the state owes huge sums of money to the publishers and the publishers have stopped the deliveries. Now the students are getting CDs, and parents are to buy them laptops just to enable a class to be held. Where money for heating the schools is to be found, especially in the north, remains wholly unclear. • The university system everywhere has virtually broken down until the end of the year. Many students are unable to submit their dissertations or sit their exams. • A mass emigration of unimaginable proportions looms. Emigration consultancies are springing up. The young see no future in Greece: unemployment is up to 40 percent among young graduates and 30 percent among adolescents. The jobs that are out there are still partly in the underground economy – no social security comes with them – and the wages are at starvation level: € 35 for a ten-hour shift in a restaurant; overtime is demanded regularly, but it’s unpaid. Consequence: the investment in the future though education and training is lost; no tax money will flow back to Greece from these people. • The mass layoffs being carried out among state officials is deliberately antisocial. The individuals being let go are mostly those who have only a few months or years ahead of them before normal retirement and are being fobbed off with 60 percent of their regular pension as “early retirees”.
The burning question: Where has all money pumped in over the past decades gone? It’s certainly not gone to the population at large. The Greek people are not unwilling to save – they simply can’t any more. All the progress made in protecting workers’ rights the past few decades has been reduced to rubble. The gates to exploitation have been flung wide open; sadly, exploitation by small firms is often a necessity for survival. If it turns out that the EU troika are enjoying dinner with the Greek politicians at €300 per head, there remains only the question of when the Greek pressure cooker will have the lid blown off. What happens in and to Greece should serve as a deadly serious warning to all of Europe. A party that would have put “reasonable austerity” onto its election manifesto would never have been elected. Addressing debt reduction is necessary, so long as it remains bearable to a degree and is not bound up with financial genocide.
Translated from the German by Anton Baer
Pingback: Προσφυγές στο Ποινικό Δικαστήριο της Χάγης: Έκκληση για μαρτυρίες – Πολύτιμη βοήθεια από ΕΠΑΜ | JusticeForGreece
Pingback: Amidst The Silent Greek Genocide | JusticeForGreece
￼OFFICE OF THE UN SPECIAL ADVISER ON THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE (OSAPG)
Legal definition of genocide
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Elements of the framework
The Analysis Framework comprises eight categories of factors that the OSAPG uses to determine whether there may be a risk of genocide in a given situation. The eight categories of factors are not ranked, and the absence of information relating to one or more categories does not necessarily indicate the absence of a risk of genocide; what is significant is the cumulative effect of the factors. Where these factors are effectively addressed, no longer exist or are no longer relevant, the risk of genocide is assumed to decrease.
Factors and explanation
1. Inter-group relations, including record of discrimination and/or other human rights violations committed against a group
Issues to be analyzed here include:
• Relations between and among groups in terms of tensions, power and economic relations, including perceptions about the targeted group;
• Existing and past conflicts over land, power, security and expressions of group identity, such as language, religion and culture;
• Past and present patterns of discrimination against members of any group which could include:
o Serious discriminatory practices, for instance, the compulsory identification of members of a particular group, imposition of taxes/fines, permission required for social activities such as marriage, compulsory birth-control, the systematic exclusion of groups from positions of power, (2) employment in State institutions and/or key professions ;
o Significant disparities in socio-economic indicators showing a pattern of deliberate exclusion from economic resources and social and political life.
• Overt justification for such discriminatory practices;
• History of genocide or related serious and massive human rights violations
against a particular group; denial by the perpetrators;
• References to past human rights violations committed against a possible
perpetrator group as a justification for genocidal acts against the targeted group in the future.
￼[1 It might be necessary to determine if all or only a part of the group at risk within a specific geographical location is being targeted. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough (substantial) to have an impact on the group as a whole. The substantiality requirement both captures genocide’s defining character as a crime of massive proportions (numbers) and reflects the Convention’s concern with the impact the destruction of the targeted part will have on the overall survival of the group (emblematic).
2 This could include security, law enforcement or oversight apparatus, such as police, army and judiciary.]
￼￼￼￼2. Circumstances that affect the capacity to prevent genocide
￼￼Structures that exist to protect the population and deter genocide include effective legislative protection; independent judiciary and effective national human rights institutions, presence of international actors such as UN operations capable of protecting vulnerable groups, neutral security forces and independent media.
Issues to be analyzed here include:
• Existing structures;
• The effectiveness of those structures;
• Whether vulnerable groups have genuine access to the protection afforded by the
• Patterns of impunity and lack of accountability for past crimes committed against
the targeted groups;
• Other options for obtaining protection against genocide, e.g. presence of
peacekeepers in a position to defend the group, or seeking asylum in other countries.
￼￼￼￼3. Presence of illegal arms and armed elements
￼￼￼￼The issues to be analyzed here include:
• Whether there exists a capacity to perpetrate genocide – especially, but not exclusively, by killing;
• How armed groups are formed, who arms them and what links they have to state authorities, if any;
• In cases of armed rebellions or uprising, whether a state has justified targeting groups from which armed actors have drawn their membership.
￼￼￼￼￼4. Motivation of leading actors in the State/region; acts which serve to encourage divisions between national, racial, ethnic, and religious groups
￼The issues to be analyzed here include:
• Underlying political, economic, military or other motivation to target a group and to separate it from the rest of the population;
• The use of exclusionary ideology and the construction of identities in terms of “us” and “them” to accentuate differences;
• Depiction of a targeted group as dangerous, disloyal, a security or economic threat or as unworthy or inferior so as to justify action against the group;
• Propaganda campaigns and fabrications about the targeted group used to justify acts against a targeted group by use of dominant, controlled media or “mirror politics”3;
• Any relevant role, whether active or passive, of actors outside the country (e.g., other Governments, armed groups based in neighboring countries, refugee groups or diasporas) and respective political or economic motivations.
5. Circumstances that facilitate perpetration of genocide (dynamic factors)
￼￼￼￼Issues to be analyzed here include:
Any development of events, whether gradual or sudden, that suggest a trajectory towards the perpetration of genocidal violence, or the existence of a longer term plan or policy to commit genocide. Examples:
• Sudden or gradual strengthening of the military or security apparatus; creation of or increased support to militia groups (e.g., sudden increases in arms flow) in the absence of discernible legitimate threats;
• Attempts to reduce or eradicate diversity within the security apparatus;
• Preparation of local population to use them to perpetrate acts;
• Introduction of legislation derogating the rights of a targeted group;
• Imposition of emergency or extraordinary security laws and facilities that erode
civil rights and liberties;
￼￼￼3 “Mirror politics” is a common strategy to create divisions by fabricating events whereby a person accuses others of what he or she does or wants to do.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼• Sudden increase in inflammatory rhetoric or hate propaganda, especially by leaders, that sets a tone of impunity, even if it does not amount to incitement to genocidal violence in itself;
• Permissive environment created by ongoing armed conflict that could facilitate access to weapons and commission of genocide.
￼￼￼￼￼6. Genocidal acts
￼￼Issues to be analyzed here include:
• Acts that could be obvious “elements” of the crime of genocide as defined in 4
Article 6 of the Rome Statute, such as killings, abduction and disappearances,
torture, rape and sexual violence; ‘ethnic cleansing’ or pogroms;5
• Less obvious methods of destruction, such as the deliberate deprivation of
resources needed for the group’s physical survival and which are available to the
6 rest of the population, such as clean water, food and medical services;
• Creation of circumstances that could lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion;
• Programs intended to prevent procreation, including involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage and long-term separation of men and women;
• Forcible transfer of children, imposed by direct force or through fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion;
• Death threats or ill treatment that causes disfigurement or injury; forced or coerced use of drugs or other treatment that damages health.
7. Evidence of intent “to destroy in whole or in part …”7
￼￼￼Issues to be analyzed here include:
• Statements amounting to hate speech 8 by those involved in a genocidal campaign;
• In a large-scale armed conflict, widespread and systematic nature of acts; intensity and scale of acts and invariability of killing methods used against the same protected group; types of weapons employed (in particular weapons prohibited
under international law) and the extent of bodily injury caused;
• In a non-conflict situation, widespread and/or systematic discriminatory and targeted practices culminating in gross violations of human rights of protected
groups, such as extrajudicial killings, torture and displacement;
• The specific means used to achieve “ethnic cleansing” which may underscore that the perpetration of the acts is designed to reach the foundations of the group or
what is considered as such by the perpetrator group;
• The nature of the atrocities, e.g., dismemberment of those already killed that
reveal a level of dehumanization of the group or euphoria at having total control over another human being, or the systematic rape of women which may be intended to transmit a new ethnic identity to the child or to cause humiliation and terror in order to fragment the group;
• The destruction of or attacks on cultural and religious property and symbols of the targeted group that may be designed to annihilate the historic presence of the group or groups;
• Targeted elimination of community leaders and/or men and/or women of a particular age group (the ‘future generation’ or a military-age group);
• Other practices designed to complete the exclusion of targeted group from social/political life.
substantial, systematic and widespread over a period of time.
Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention
in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion to inhospitable environments.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Efforts should be made to gather information on a sufficient number of incidents to determine whether the abuses were
8. Triggering factors
Issues to be analyzed here include:
Future events or circumstances seemingly unrelated to genocide that might aggravate conditions or spark deterioration in the situation, pointing to the likely onset of a genocidal episode. These ‘triggers’ might include:
• Upcoming elections (and associated activities such as voter registration or campaigning; revision of delimitation of electoral boundaries; a call for early elections or the postponement or cancellation of elections; disbanding of election commissions; imposition of new quotas/standards for political party or candidate eligibility);
• Change of Government outside of an electoral or constitutionally sanctioned process;
• Instances where the military is deployed internally to act against civilians;
• Commencement of armed hostilities;
• Natural disasters that may stress state capacity and strengthen active opposition
• Increases in opposition capacity, which may be perceived as a threat and prompt
preemptive action, or rapidly declining opposition capacity which may invite rapid
9 action to eliminate problem groups.
Genocidal intent can develop gradually, e.g., in the course of conflict and not necessarily before, and genocide may be used as a “tool” or “strategy” to achieve military goals in an operation whose primary objective may be unrelated to the targeted group. Evidence of “intent to destroy” can be inferred from a set of existing facts which would suggest that what is unfolding or ongoing may be genocide. From a preventive perspective, there could be other indications of a plan or policy or an attempt to destroy a protected group before the occurrence of full-blown genocide.
The hate speech has to denigrate characteristics of a specific ethnic/racial/religious/national group.
Critical moments can also represent moments of opportunity to improve a situation and to lessen the risk of genocide.
Click to access osapg_analysis_framework.pdf
To the prosecutor of the International court of Hague based on the article 15 of Rome
Witness (File number): OTP-CR-345/12 case number 157/2009
Corte Criminal International (ICC)
National discrimination (cause – I “didn’t” pay the 100 euros because of the austerity measures) case court Number 157/2009 etc regarding my health medical record – illegal NATIONAL health research – from the Greek doctors/politicians/GREEK COURTS – from 2007 up to day
Therefore, there are different aspects of the issue it seems to be the austerity measures with specific attitude
The issue could be approached by multiple ways – dimensions:
First part: multiple visits to Greek doctors
Avoidance to provide treatment perhaps not because of the dental implants – but from the austerity measures – the national insurance ika/ταξυ
Number of register: 95 737
Number of the police complain.
αριθμός πρωτοκ. 1020/2/4274-α (66)
Date of the complain 5/4-2012
Previously in 10/10- 2008 and 30-10-2008 I have visited my government insurance called TAΞΥ about the implants and they suggested – go to a private dentist – we don’t know about implants – perhaps he/she the two denti
La Stampa – Italy | Friday, March 9, 2012
The financial genocide continues
Despite the debt restructuring deal there is no cause for jubilation in Greece because the EU will continue with its financial genocide, the liberal daily La Stampa writes: “What we are doing with Greece goes beyond the limits of the economic. Even if Athens did dish up a pack of lies – lies the European financial world was only too glad to believe – the rest of Europe is treating the Greeks worse than the allies treated the defeated Germans after World War II. The deal that saves the euro is a death sentence for Greece. By preventing Greece from officially going bankrupt Europe is allowing the country to be bled dry. This is financial genocide, as a Viennese paper [Die Presse] so aptly described this torture method. We are condemning the country to at least 15 years of poverty.”
» full article (external link, Italian)
Genocide – A Modern Crime
By Raphael Lemkin , April 1945
This article first appeared during World War II in the April 1945 issue of FREE WORLD – “A Non-Partisan Magazine devoted to the United Nations and Democracy,” published in five languages. [Free World, Vol. 4 (April, 1945), p. 39- 43]The article summarized for a popular audience the concepts Lemkin originally presented in Chapter 9 of Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in November 1944.
“ONE of the great mistakes of 1918 was to spare the civil life of the enemy countries, for it is necessary for us Germans to be always at least double the numbers of the peoples of the contiguous countries. We are therefore obliged to destroy at least a third of their inhabitants. The only means is organized underfeeding which in this case is better than machine guns.”
The speaker was Marshal von Rundstedt addressing the Reich War Academy in Berlin in 1943. He was only aping the Fuhrer who had said, “Natural instincts bid all living human beings not merely conquer their enemies but also destroy them. In former days it was the victor’s prerogative to destroy tribes, entire peoples.”
Hitler was right. The crime of the Reich in wantonly and deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world. It is only new in the civilized world as we have come to think of it. It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.
It is for this reason that I took the liberty of inventing the word, “genocide.” The term is from the Greek word genes meaning tribe or race and the Latin cide meaning killing. Genocide tragically enough must take its place in the dictionary of the future beside other tragic words like homicide and infanticide. As Von Rundstedt has suggested the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that.
More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.
Such terms as “denationalization” or “Germanization” which have been used till now do not adequately convey the full force of the new phenomenon of genocide. They signify only the substitution of the national pattern of the oppressor for the original national pattern but not the destruction of the biological and physical structure of the oppressed group.
Philosophy of Genocide
GERMANY has transformed an ancient barbarity into a principle of government by dignifying genocide as a sacred purpose of the German people. National Socialism is the doctrine of the biological superiority of the German people. Long before the war nazi leaders were unblushinghly announcing to the world and propagandizing to the Germans themselves the program of genocide they had elaborated. Like Hitler and Von Rundstedt, the official nazi philosopher Alfred Rosenberg declared “History and the mission of the future no longer mean the struggle of class against class, the struggle of church dogma against dogma, but the clash between blood and blood, race and race, people and people.” As the German war machine placed more and more defeated nations under the full control of nazi authorities, their civilian populations found themselves exposed to the bloodthirsty and methodical application of the German program of genocide.
A hierarchy of racial values determined the ultimate fate of the many peoples that fell under German domination. Jews were to be completely annihilated. The Poles, the Slovenes, the Czechs, the Russians, and all other inferior Slav peoples were to be kept on the lowest social levels. Those felt to be related by blood, the Dutch, the Norwegian, the Alsatians, etc., were to have the alternatives of entering the German community by espousing “Germanism” or of sharing the fate of the inferior peoples.
Techniques of Genocide
All aspects of nationhood were exposed to the attacks of the genocidal policy.
The political cohesion of the conquered countries was intended to be weakened by dividing them into more or less self-contained and hermetically enclosed zones, as in the four zones of France, the ten zones of Yugoslavia, the five zones of Greece; by partitioning their territories to create puppet states, like Croatia and Slovakia; by detaching territory for incorporation in the Greater Reich, as was done with western Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, Slovenia. Artificial boundaries were created to prevent communication and mutual assistance by the national groups involved.
In the incorporated areas of western land, Luxembourg, Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen, Malmedy, Moresnet, local administrations were replaced by German administrative organization. The legal system was recast on the German model. Special Commissioners for the strengthening of Germanism, attached to each administration, coordinated the activities designed to foster and promote Germanism. They were assisted by local inhabitants of German origin. These, duly registered and accredited, served as a nucleus of Germanism and enjoyed special privileges in respect to food rations, employment and position.
National allegiances were impaired by creating puppet governments, as in Greece, Norway and France, and by supporting national Nazi parties. Where the people, such as the Poles, could not achieve the dignity of embracing Germanism, they were expelled from the area and their territory (western Poland) was to be Germanized by colonization.
The social structure of a nation is vital to its national development. Therefore the German occupant endeavored to bring about changes that weakened national spiritual resources. The focal point of this attack has been the intelligentsia, because this group largely provides leadership. In Poland and Slovenia the intellectuals and the clergy were to a large extent either murdered or removed for forced labor in Germany. Intellectuals and resistants of all occupied countries were marked for execution. Even among the blood-related Dutch some 23,000 were killed, the greater number of them being leading members of their communities.
The Germans sought to obliterate every reminder of former cultural patterns. In the incorporated areas the local language, place names, personal names, public signs and inscriptions were supplanted by German inscriptions. German was to be the language of the courts, of the schools, of the government and of the street. In Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, French was not even permitted as a language to be studied in primary schools. The function of the schools was to preserve and strengthen nazism. Attendance at a German school compulsory through the primary grades and three years of secondary school.
In Poland, although Poles could receive vocational training, they were denied any liberal arts training since that might stimulate independent national thinking. To prohibit artistic expression of a national culture, rigid controls were established. Not only were the radio, the press, and the cities closely supervised, but every painter, musician, architect, sculptor, writer, actor and theatrical producer required a license to continue his artistic activities.
Wherever religion represented a vital influence in the national life, the spiritual power of the Church was undermined by various means. In Luxembourg children over 14 were protected by law against criticism if they should renounce their religious affiliations for membership in nazi youth organizations. In the puppet state of Croatia an independent, but German-dominated Orthodox Church was created for Serbs, in order to destroy forever the spiritual ties with the Patriarch at Belgrade. With the special violence and thoroughness reserved for Poles and Jews, Polish church property was pillaged and despoiled and the clergy subjected to constant persecution.
Hand in hand with the undermining of religious influence went devices for the moral debasement of national groups. Pornographic publications and movies were foisted upon the Poles. Alcohol was kept cheap although food became increasingly dear, and peasants were legally bound to accept spirits for agricultural produce. Although under Polish law gambling houses had been prohibited, German authorities not only permitted them to come into existence, but relaxed the otherwise severe curfew law.
The genocidal purpose of destroying or degrading the economic foundations of national groups was to lower the standards of living and to sharpen the struggle for existence, that no energies might remain for a cultural or national life. Jews were immediately deprived of the elemental means of existence by expropriation and by forbidding them the right to work. Polish property in western incorporated Poland was confiscated and Poles denied licenses to practice trades or handicrafts, thus reserving trade to the Germans. The Post Office Savings Bank in western Poland taken over by the occupying authorities, assured the financial superiority of Germans by repaying deposits only to certificated Germans. In Slovenia the financial cooperatives and agricultural associations were liquidated. Among the blood-related peoples (Luxembourgers, Alsatians) the acceptance of Germanism was the criterion by which participation in the economic life was determined.
The genocidal policy was far-sighted as well as immediate in its objectives. On the one hand an increase in the birth rate, legitimate or illegitimate, was encouraged within Germany and among Volksdeutsche in the occupied countries. Subsidies were offered for children begotten by German military men by women of related blood such as Dutch and Norwegian. On the other hand, every means to decrease the birth rate among “racial inferiors” was used. Millions of war prisoners and forced laborers from all the conquered countries of Europe were kept from contact with their wives. Poles in incorporated Poland met obstacles in trying to marry among themselves. Chronic undernourishment, deliberately created by the occupant, tended not only to discourage the birth rate but also to an increase in infant mortality. Coming generations in Europe were thus planned to be predominantly of German blood, capable of overwhelming all other races by sheer numbers.
The most direct and drastic of the techniques of genocide is simply murder. It may be the slow and scientific murder by mass starvation or the swift but no less scientific murder by mass extermination in gas chambers, wholesale executions or exposure to disease and exhaustion. Food rations of all territory under German domination were established on racial principles, ranging in 1943 from 93 per cent of its pre-war diet for the German inhabitants to 20 per cent of its pre-war diet for the Jewish population. A carefully graduated scale allowed protein rations of 97 per cent to Germans, 95 per cent to the Dutch, 71 per cent to the French, 38 per cent to the Greeks and 20 per cent to the Jews. For fats, where there was the greatest shortage, the rations were 77 per cent to the Germans, 65 per cent to the Dutch, 40 per cent to the French and 0.32 per cent to the Jews. Specific vitamin deficiencies were created on a scientific basis.
The rise in the death rate among the various groups reflects this feeding program. The death rate in the Netherlands was 10 per thousand; Belgium 14 per thousand; Bohemia and Moravia 13.4 per thousand. The mortality in Warsaw was 2.160 Aryans in September 1941 as compared to 800 in September 1938, and for the Jews in Warsaw 7,000 in September 1941 as against 306 in Septeniber1938.
Such elementary necessities of life as warm clothing, blankets and firewood in winter were either withheld or requisitioned from Poles and Jews. Beginning with the winter of 1940-1941 the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto received no fuel at all. Even God’s clean air was denied – the Jews in the overcrowded ghettos were forbidden the use of public parks. The authoritative report of the War Refugee Board published in November 1944, and the overwhelming new evidence that appears daily of the brutal mass killings that have taken place in such notorious “death camps” as Maidanek and Oswiecim are sufficient indication of the scope of the German program.
In Birkenau alone between April 1942 and April 1944 approximately 1,765,000 Jews were gassed. Some 5,600,000 Jews and around 2,000,000 Poles have been murdered or died as a result of the extermination policies. Whole communities have been exterminated. It is estimated, for instance, that of the 140,000 Dutch Jews who lived in the Netherlands before occupation, only some 7,000 now survive, the rest being transferred to Poland for slaughter.
WHY should genocide be recognized as an international problem? Why not treat it as an internal problem of every country, if committed in time of peace, or as a problem between belligerents, if committed in time of war?
The practices of genocide anywhere affect the vital interests of all civilized people. Its consequences can neither be isolated nor localized. Tolerating genocide is an admission of the principle that one national group has the right to attack another because of its supposed racial superiority. This principle invites an expansion of such practices beyond the borders of the offending state, and that means wars of aggression.
The disease of criminality if left unchecked is contagious. Minorities of one sort or another exist in all countries, protected by the constitutional order of the state. If persecution of any minority by any country is tolerated anywhere, the very moral and legal foundations of constitutional government may be shaken.
International trade depends on the confidence in the ability of individuals participating in the interchange of goods to fulfill their obligations. Arbitrary and wholesale confiscations of the properties and economic rights of whole groups of citizens of one state deprives them of the possibilities of discharging their obligations to citizens of other states, who thereby are penalized.
A source of international friction is created by unilateral withdrawal of citizen rights and even by expulsion of whole minority groups to other countries. The expulsion of law-abiding residents from Germany before this war has created friction with the neighboring countries to which these people were expelled. Moreover mass persecutions force mass flight. Thus the normal migration between countries assumes pathological dimensions.
Our whole cultural heritage is a product of the contributions of all peoples. We can best understand this if we realize how impoverished our culture would be if the so-called inferior peoples doomed by Germany, such as the Jews, had not been permitted to create the Bible or to give birth to an Einstein, a Spinosa; if the Poles had not had the opportunity to give to the world a Copernicus, a Chopin, a Curie, the Czechs a Huss, and a Dvorak; the Greeks a Plato and a Socrates; the Russians, a Tolstoy and a Shostakovich.
Safeguards and Remedies
THE significance of a policy of genocide to the world order and to human culture is so great as to make it imperative that a system of safeguards be devised. The principle of the international protection of minorities was proclaimed by post-Versailles minority treaties.
These treaties, however, were inadequate because they were limited to a few newly created countries. They were established mainly with the aim of protecting political and civil rights, rather than the biological structure of the groups involved; the machinery of enforcement of such political rights was as incomplete as that of the League of Nations.
Under such conditions the genocide policy begun by Germany on its own Jewish citizens in 1933 was considered as an internal problem which the German state, as a sovereign power, should handle without interference by other states.
Although the Hague Regulations were concerned with the protection of civilians under control of military occupants, they did not foresee all the ingenious and scientific methods developed by Germany in this war.
Genocide is too disastrous a phenomenon to be left to fragmentary regulation. There must be an adequate mechanism for international cooperation in the punishment of the offenders.
The crime of genocide includes the following elements:
The intent of the offenders is to destroy or degrade an entire national, religious or racial group by attacking the individual members of that group.
This attack is a serious threat either to life, liberty, health, economic existence or to all of them.
The offenders may be representatives of the state or of organized political or social groups.
Liability should be fixed upon individuals both as to those who give the orders and to those who execute the orders.
The offender, should be precluded from invoking as his defense the plea that he had been acting under the law of his country, since acts of genocide should be declared contrary to international law and morality.
Since the consequences of genocide are international in their implications, the repression of genocide should be internationalized. The culprit should be liable not only in the country in which the crime was committed, but in the country where he might be apprehended. The country where he is found may itself try him or extradite him.
Since a country which makes a policy of genocide cannot be trusted to try its own offenders, such offenders should be subject to trial by an international court. Eventually, there should be established a special chamber within the framework of the International Court of Justice.
The crime of genocide should be incorporated into the penal codes of all states by international treaty, giving them a legal basis upon which they could act.
It is also proposed that the Hague Regulations be modified to extend to captive nations the controls provided for the treatment of war prisoners by the Convention of July 1929. Attempts to rescue or alleviate the suffering of captive nations have been hampered by lack of accurate information.
Germany has reminded us that our science and our civilization have not expunged barbarism from the human animal. They have merely armed it with more efficient instruments. We must call upon the resources of all our social and legal institutions to protect our civilization against the onslaught of this wanton barbarism in generations to come.
RAPHAEL LEMKIN is Polish but his viewpoint is international and his understanding of the nazi menace is of more than recent date. This former League of Nations specialist was a member of the International Bureau for Unification of Criminal Law. At the Madrid Conference of 1933 he introduced the first proposal ever made to outlaw nazism by declaring it a crime. His idea was that any Nazi who put his foot abroad should be punished by the government of the country he entered.
Dr. LEMKIN, now teaching at Duke University, has served as a consultant to the United States on economic warfare and on military government. His article in this issue coins a new word for the English dictionary to fit nazi organized brutality. He calls it genocide.
Ο κρητικός γιατρός που σόκαρε το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο με τα λόγια και τις φωτογραφίες του
14.03.2014 – 11:05
Εκείνο που σκόπιμα παραβλέπει ο υπουργός υγείας και δεν σκέφτηκαν να κάνουν οι θιγόμενοι από τη λεγόμενη “μεταρρύθμιση” στον τομέα της υγείας έπραξε ο πρόεδρος του Ιατρικού Συλλόγου Λασιθίου και μέλος του Πανελληνίου Ιατρικού Συλλόγου, Κωνσταντίνος Νικολαράκης.
Συγκέντρωσε δηλαδή όλα εκείνα τα στοιχεία που δείχνουν πως η κατάσταση στην οποία έχει περιέλθει σήμερα η υγεία στη χώρα μας έχει πάρει διαστάσεις προβλήματος ανθρωπιστικής φύσεως (ανάμεσα τους και δημοσίευμα του εγκυρότερου ξένου ιατρικού περιοδικού Lancet που μιλάει για την Ελληνική κρίση στην υγεία) και μετέβη στις Βρυξέλλες όπου τα παρέθεσε στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ενημερώνοντας σχετικά και τον ίδιο τον Επίτροπο Υγείας.
Ο κ Νικολαράκης μιλώντας σήμερα στο Ράδιο Κρήτη και το Νίκο Ψιλάκη τόνισε ότι η επίσκεψη του στις Βρυξέλλες επιβεβαίωσε εκείνο που φοβόταν, ότι δηλαδή εκεί γνωρίζουν τα τεχνοκρατικά στοιχεία της δήθεν μεταρρύθμισης στο χώρο της υγείας αλλά δεν έχουν ιδέα για τα προβλήματα που έχει δημιουργήσει στον άνθρωπο.
Όπως χαρακτηριστικά τους εξήγησε, «Εδώ χτυπά η καρδιά της Ευρώπης, 3000 χιλιόμετρα όμως από εδώ σπαράζει και ραγίζει η καρδιά του Έλληνα πολίτη. Εμείς οι Έλληνες γιατροί δεν ήρθαμε εδώ για να ζητήσουμε ελεημοσύνη…Ήρθαμε να σας ενημερώσουμε ότι όπως κάθε οικονομική κρίση αυτού του μεγέθους, σαν αυτή που πλήττει την πατρίδα μας σήμερα, συνοδεύτηκε από κρίση ανθρωπιστικής φύσεως. Τα ίδια έχουν γίνει στο παρελθόν, έτσι γίνεται και σ εμάς σήμερα. Το ζήτημα της υγείας στην Ελλάδα έχει μετατραπεί σε μείζον πρόβλημα ανθρωπιστικής φύσεως”.
Για να στηρίξει τις απόψεις του ο κ Νικολαράκης πήγε κρατώντας στα χέρια του συγκεκριμένα στοιχεία, που ουδείς στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο αμφισβήτησε.
Μίλησε για τα 4 εκ Ελλήνων που βρίσκονται σήμερα κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας με ετήσια έσοδα λιγότερα των 4.000 ευρώ, για το 1,5 εκατομμύριο των ανέργων , για τους 750.000 πολίτες που είναι ανασφάλιστοι χωρίς καμία πρόσβαση στο ΕΣΥ, (ανάμεσα τους και χιλιάδες παιδιά που δεν έχουν καν εμβολιαστεί), για την αύξηση των κρουσμάτων AIDS , για την αύξηση κατά 30% των ασθενών που προσέρχονται στα κρατικά θεραπευτικά ιδρύματα τα τελευταία 4 χρόνια και πολλά άλλα.
Ο ίδιος παρουσίασε αναλυτικά στοιχεία για το νοσοκομείο του Αγίου Νικολάου όπου εργάζεται με τους 68 γιατρούς πριν το 2009 και τους 48 σήμερα, επίσης παρέθεσε στοιχεία του μεγαλύτερου Μαιευτηρίου της Αθήνας όπου μητέρες εγκαταλείπουν κρυφά τα βράδια τα παιδιά τους, μετά την αποθεραπεία τους, επειδή δεν έχουν να πληρώσουν το κόστος νοσηλείας τους.
Δεν αρκέστηκε όμως μόνο εκεί. Έκανε κι ένα βήμα παραπέρα και έδειξε σειρά φωτογραφιών με ανήμπορους κατάκοιτους ανθρώπους , ανθρώπους με παραπληγία 100% που η αρμόδια υγειονομική επιτροπή τους στερεί το σχετικό επίδομα χαρακτηρίζοντας τους ως μη παραπληγικούς.
Όπως τους εξήγησε ο κ Νικολαράκης ,80.000 άνθρωποι είναι σήμερα στην Ελλάδα στο κρεβάτι περιμένοντας τις ανύπαρκτες επιτροπές να αποφανθούν για την αδυναμία τους να λειτουργήσουν όπως όλοι εμείς ώστε να πάρουν το επίδομα που δικαιούνται .
Τα λεγόμενα του ψυχιάτρου στην ειδικότητα, από τον Άγιο Νικόλαο , φαίνεται να έγιναν κατανοητά από τους τεχνοκράτες των Βρυξελλών και όπως ο ίδιος είπε διαπίστωσε πως σε δύο σημεία, τουλάχιστον, μάλλον θα πρέπει να περιμένουμε την παρέμβαση τους. Το ένα έχει να κάνει με τα μη εμβολιασμένα παιδιά και το άλλο με τους κατάκοιτους ασθενείς που περιμένουν να περάσουν από επιτροπές.
Ο κ Νικολαράκης φέρεται αποφασισμένος να φτάσει το θέμα μέχρι και στον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Υγείας καθώς όπως είπε «ως γιατροί δεν θεραπεύουμε νούμερα αλλά ανθρώπους»
Εξάλλου ο ίδιος θεωρεί υποχρέωση της ΕΕ να παρέμβει και να δώσει λύση «Όταν με υποκριτικό τρόπο η Ευρώπη στηρίζει ανθρώπους στην υποσαχάρια Αφρική καλό είναι να βλέπει και τι γίνεται στην αυλή της» σημειώνει χαρακτηριστικά.
Pingback: Ένα από τα καλύτερα βίντεο που έχετε δει ποτέ, σχετικά με το θέμα της λαθρομετανάστευσης… « ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΙΘΩΜΗ
Pingback: Και ξαφνικά ανακαλύψαν όλοι ότι η Ελλάδα είναι ζάπλουτη … | JusticeForGreece
Pingback: Και ξαφνικά ανακαλύψαν όλοι ότι η Ελλάδα είναι ζάπλουτη … – the 500 euros generation
Pingback: Και ξαφνικά ανακάλυψαν όλοι ότι η Ελλάδα είναι ζάπλουτη… – Newspolis
Stiglitz: A cultural Genocide in Greece
Let’s talk about Greece, where you have been quite vocal in the past, especially at the peak of the 2015 negotiation process. This year we have started to see signs of sluggish growth and hear narratives of an economic recovery. How do you evaluate those?
I think what has happened in Greece is a normalization of poverty. I see no real recovery yet, I just think the economy has fallen so far that it’s almost inconceivable for it fall further. But I don’t see a reason to celebrate depression continuing, but not getting much worse. I think Greeks are finding way to cope as a society, but the long-run effects on society are devastating. The good side of Europe is that you can move freely and seek opportunity, the downside is that young people are now leaving Greece behind to seek jobs. It’s like a cultural genocide.
What’s the Difference Between ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ and ‘Genocide?’
What are the differences between the legal terms “crimes against humanity” and “genocide”? And are both equally useful in punishing mass crimes and facilitating closure?
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Robert Coalson spoke with British lawyer Philippe Sands about his forthcoming book, which explores this issue. Sands is a professor of international law at University College London who frequently works on cases before international tribunals.
He is the author of “Lawless World,” which argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq occurred in violation of international law. He is currently representing Macedonia in a case against Greece in the International Court of Justice regarding the use of the name “Macedonia.”
Tell us in a nutshell, if you can, what are the legal concepts of crimes against humanity and genocide?
Crimes against humanity and genocide are two distinct concepts. They became part of international law in the mid-1940s, after the end of World War II, and really around the time of the Nuremburg trials. They were new concepts — they are relatively recent in that sense. And what I have been doing in a new book that I am working on is tracing their origins.
The basic difference between crimes against humanity and genocide is as follows: Crimes against humanity focuses on the killing of large numbers of individuals. The systematic, mass killing of a very large number of individuals will constitute a crime against humanity. Genocide has a different focus. Genocide focuses not on the killing of individuals, but on the destruction of groups. In other words, a large number of individuals who form part of a single group. And the two concepts in this way have different objectives. One aims at protecting the individual; the other aims at protecting the group.
Would it be fair to say that you have criticisms or at least concerns about the legal concept of genocide?
It’s not that I’ve got concerns or criticisms about one or the other. Frankly, I’m trying to work out in my own mind which of the two ideas I’m most attracted to. I can see both arguments. Basically, Lemkin’s view, promoting the idea of genocide, is that people are not killed as individuals. They are killed or harmed because they are members of a group — a national group or an ethnic group or a religious group. And he says that’s the reality and the law has to reflect that reality. No, says Lauterpach. People are individual human beings and they should be protected as individual human beings, not because they happen to be a member of a group. And the danger for Lauterpach was that Lemkin’s idea of protecting groups would create the very conditions that Lemkin was trying to protect us all from — namely, it would pit one group against another group. It would set in concrete terms the idea that groups have an identity in law and they should be protected as groups.
So, it is a sort of a major intellectual battle between the two. They don’t disagree on what the objective is — they want to avoid mass killing. What they disagree with is what’s the best way to deal with that. And one, in a sense, is more realist — Lemkin — and the other is more utopian. And I’m just trying to work out which of the two that I agree with. Of course, what’s happened in the meantime, since these ideas came up in 1945, 1946 — if you fast-forward to the summer of 1998 and imagine yourself in Rome in July 1998 when the governments of the world came together and drafted the document that was the statute of the International Criminal Court, what they did in that document was they put both genocide and crimes against humanity in. So what has happened subsequently is that both ideas have been given resonance.
It seems to me that one difference between crimes against humanity and genocide is that the charge of crimes against humanity seems to attach just to the individual who is charged, while a genocide charge attaches not only to that person but to his or her ethnic group as well.
I think that is exactly right. I think that what the concept of genocide does — and I can absolutely see why Lemkin came up with it — but what it does is it requires the person claiming that a genocide has taken place to show that the person who did the act intended to destroy a group. Since the person proving this is often from the group that is the victim group, what it tends to do, I think, is create the sort of condition in which you associate with the alleged perpetrator a sort of bad intent toward another group and it tends to pit the victim group against the perpetrator group.
I think the danger is it tends to reinforce the very conditions that it seeks to prevent. It reinforces the sense that one group is against another group. And that was what Lauterpach was concerned about. He was very concerned that it would do exactly that and I think that is a critique of the concept of genocide. On the other hand, Lemkin is right: people are not killed because they are only individuals
Tuesday, 4 July 2017 – Strasbourg Provisional edition
Addressing human rights violations in the context of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide
European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2017 on addressing human rights violations in the context of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide (2016/2239(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948,
– having regard to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression),
– having regard to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984,
A. whereas the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, also known as ‘atrocity crimes’, are the most serious crimes against humankind and a reason for concern for the entire international community; whereas humankind has been convulsed by such crimes;
B. whereas the international community has the duty to prevent atrocity crimes from taking place; whereas when such crimes happen they must not go unpunished and their effective, fair and rapid prosecution must be ensured, at national or international level and according to the principle of complementarity;
C. whereas accountability, justice, the rule of law and the fight against impunity constitute essential elements underpinning peace and conflict resolution, reconciliation and reconstruction efforts;
D. whereas genuine reconciliation can be based only on truth and justice;
E. whereas the victims of such crimes have the right to remedy and compensation and whereas refugees who have been the victims of atrocity crimes should receive full support from the international community; whereas in this context it is important to adopt a gender perspective by taking account of the special needs of women and girls in refugee camps, during repatriation and resettlement, in rehabilitation and in post-conflict reconstruction;
F. whereas the ICC plays a key role in the fight against impunity, in the restoration of peace, and in providing justice for victims;
G. whereas the system of reparations for the victims of the crimes within the competences of the Court makes the ICC a unique judicial institution at the international level;
H. whereas universal accession to the Rome Statute is essential for the full effectiveness of the ICC; whereas 124 countries, including all EU Member States, have ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC;
I. whereas the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute on the crime of aggression, considered as the most serious and dangerous form of illegal use of force, have been ratified by 34 countries, thus achieving the 30 acceptances required for its activation and opening the possibility for the Assembly of States Parties to adopt, after 1 January 2017, the activation of the Court’s treaty-based aggression-related jurisdiction;
J. whereas in November 2016 Russia decided to withdraw its signature from the Rome Statute; whereas in October 2016 South Africa, Gambia and Burundi also announced their withdrawal; whereas the African Union (AU) on 31 January 2017 adopted a non-binding resolution including an ICC Withdrawal Strategy and calling on AU member states to consider implementing its recommendations; whereas in February and March 2017 respectively, Gambia and South Africa notified their decision to revoke their withdrawal from the Rome Statute;
K. whereas cooperation among States Parties to the Rome Statute and with regional organisations is of the utmost importance, particularly in situations where the jurisdiction of the ICC is being challenged;
L. whereas the ICC is currently conducting ten investigations in nine countries (Georgia, Mali, Côte d’Ivoire, Libya, Kenya, Sudan (Darfur), Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and (two investigations) the Central African Republic;
M. whereas, in accordance with the principle of complementarity as enshrined in the Rome Statute, the ICC only acts in instances where national courts are unable or unwilling to genuinely investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes, so that States Parties retain the primary responsibility for bringing to justice the alleged perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern;
N. whereas in Council Common Position 2001/443/CFSP of 11 June 2001 on the ICC the Member States declared that the crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC are of concern to all Member States, which are determined to cooperate on the prevention of those crimes and on putting an end to impunity for the perpetrators thereof;
O. whereas the EU and its Member States have been staunch allies of the ICC from its inception, offering continued political, diplomatic, financial and logistical support, including the promotion of universality and the defence of the integrity of the Rome Statute system;
P. whereas the EU and its Member States have pledged to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that they will strongly support the establishment of an effective mechanism for strengthening compliance with international humanitarian law; whereas Parliament has requested the VP/HR to report back on the objectives and strategy devised in order to deliver on this pledge;
Q. whereas numerous atrocity crimes were committed on the territory of countries formerly forming part of Yugoslavia in the wars that took place between 1991 and 1995;
R. whereas trial proceedings for the atrocity crimes committed on the territory of countries formerly forming part of Yugoslavia in the wars between 1991 and 1995 are progressing very slowly;
S. whereas Syria acceded to the Genocide Convention in 1955 and to the Torture Convention in 2004;
T. whereas in its resolution of 27 October 2016 Parliament recalled that human rights abuses perpetrated by ISIS/Daesh include genocide;
U. whereas several UN reports, including those by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, the Special Adviser of the UN Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, the Special Adviser of the UN Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect, the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as NGO sources,, have stated that acts committed by all sides may constitute atrocity crimes and that war crimes were committed by all sides during the fight for Aleppo in December 2016;
V. whereas the ICC has stated that there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Statute have been committed in Nigeria by Boko Haram, including murder and persecution;
W. whereas hundreds of executions in Burundi since April 2015 have led a report by the UN Independent Investigation on Burundi to conclude that various persons in Burundi should be prosecuted for alleged crimes against humanity;
X. whereas civil society organisations, international lawyers and NGOs have warned that events which occurred in Burundi at the end of 2016 could amount to genocide;
Y. whereas the international rules on war crimes and crimes against humanity are binding also on non-state actors or persons acting on behalf or in the framework of non-state organisations; whereas this should be reaffirmed even more today, when non-state actors are more and more present in war scenarios and promote and commit such serious crimes;
Z. whereas under certain conditions, states can also be held accountable for breaches of obligations under international treaties and conventions over which the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction, including the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
AA. whereas the International Court of Justice has the ability to establish state liability;
AB. whereas, with the intention of intimidating and humiliating the enemy, rape and sexual violence are used by all parties in conflict as a tactic of war; whereas, moreover, during conflict gender violence and sexual abuse also increase dramatically;
AC. whereas violence against women, both during conflict and post-conflict, can be seen as part of a continuum extending from the discrimination women experience in non-conflict times; whereas conflict exacerbates pre-existing patterns of discrimination based on sex as well as historically unequal power-relations between genders, and puts women and girls at heightened risk of sexual, physical and psychological violence;
1. Recalls the EUʼs commitment to act on the international scene in the name of the principles that inspired its creation, including democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, and in favour of the principles of the UN Charter and international law; reaffirms, in this context, that it should be of paramount importance for the EU to address and hold accountable those responsible for severe violations of human rights reaching the gravity threshold of crimes against humanity and genocide and grave breaches of international humanitarian law reaching the level of war crimes;
2. Calls for the EU and its Member States to use all their political weight to prevent any act that could be considered a crime of atrocity from taking place, to respond in an efficient and coordinated manner in cases where such crimes occur and, to mobilise all necessary resources to bring to justice all those responsible, as well as to assist the victims and support stabilisation and reconciliation processes;
On the need to focus on the prevention of atrocity crimes
3. Urges the Contracting Parties to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984 and to other relevant international agreements, including the EU Member States, to take all necessary action to prevent atrocity crimes within their territory, under their jurisdiction or committed by their citizens, as they have committed to doing; calls on all states that have not yet ratified the above conventions to do so;
4. Emphasises the urgent need for the international community to step up its efforts to monitor and respond to any conflict or potential conflict that might lead to any act that could be considered an atrocity crime;
5. Calls on the international community to establish instruments that can minimise the warning response gap in order to prevent the emergence, re-emergence and escalation of violent conflict, such as the EU’s early warning system;
6. Calls for the EU to step up its efforts to develop a coherent and efficient approach to identifying and responding in a timely fashion to crisis or conflict situations that might lead to an atrocity crime being committed; underlines, in particular, the importance and necessity of the effective exchange of information and coordination of preventive actions between EU institutions, including EU delegations, common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions and operations and Member States, together with their diplomatic representations; welcomes, in this context, the Commission’s new initiative of a White Paper which would lead to a more effective external action of the EU; underlines the importance of post-conflict civilian missions and operations under the CSDP in order to support reconciliation in third countries, especially when these have been the scene of crimes against humanity;
7. Considers that the EU should integrate into its comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises the necessary tools for identifying and preventing any atrocity crime at an early stage; draws attention in this context to the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes drafted by the UN Office of the Special Advisers on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect; considers that the EU and its Member States should always adopt a strong stance in cases where crimes appear imminent and should use all peaceful instruments at their disposal, such as bilateral relations, multilateral fora and public diplomacy;
8. Urges the VP/HR: to continue the cooperation with and training of the staff of the EU delegations and Member States’ embassies, as well as of civilian and military missions, in the fields of international human rights, humanitarian law and criminal law, including the capacity to detect potential situations involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and grave violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), inter alia by regular exchanges with local civil society; to ensure that EU Special Representatives uphold the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) whenever necessary and broaden the mandate of the EU Special Representative on Human Rights to include R2P issues; to further support the EU Focal Point for R2P in the European External Action Service (EEAS) in the context of the existing structures and resources, with it being tasked notably with raising awareness of the implications of R2P and ensuring timely information flows between all concerned actors over situations of concern, while also encouraging the establishment of national focal points for R2P in the Member States; and to further professionalise and strengthen preventive diplomacy and mediation;
9. Emphasises the need for countries and regions at risk of conflict to have skilled and trustworthy security forces; calls for further efforts from the EU and the Member States to develop capacity-building programmes for the security sector, as well as platforms to promote a culture of respect for human rights and for the constitution, of integrity and of public service among local security and military forces;
10. Stresses that addressing the root causes of violence and conflict, contributing to creating peaceful and democratic conditions, ensuring respect for human rights, including the protection of women, young people and minors, minorities and the LGBTI community, together with promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue, are crucial to preventing genocide and crimes against humanity;
11. Calls for the development, at international, regional and national levels, of educational and cultural programmes promoting an understanding of the causes and consequences of atrocity crimes for humankind and raising awareness of the necessity and importance of nurturing peace, promoting human rights and interreligious tolerance, and prosecuting and investigating all such crimes; welcomes, in this context, the organisation of the first annual EU Day against Impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;
On supporting the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes
12. Reiterates its full support for the ICC, the Rome Statute, the Office of Prosecutor, the Prosecutor’s proprio motu powers, and the progress made in initiating new investigations as an essential means of fighting impunity for atrocity crimes;
13. Welcomes the meeting that took place on 6 July 2016 between EU and ICC representatives in Brussels in preparation for the 2nd EU-ICC round table meeting, held to allow relevant staff at the ICC and in the European institutions to identify common areas of interest, exchange information on relevant activities and ensure better cooperation between the EU and the ICC;
14. Reaffirms that maintaining the independence of the ICC is crucial not only to ensure that it is fully effective, but also to promote the universality of the Rome Statute;
15. Cautions that the execution of justice cannot rest on a balancing act between justice and any kind of political consideration, as such balance would not foster reconciliation efforts but diminish them;
16. Reaffirms the paramount importance of universal adherence to the Rome Statute of the ICC; calls on the states which have not yet done so to ratify the Rome Statute, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court and the Kampala amendments to the Rome Statute, in order to support accountability and reconciliation as key elements in preventing future atrocities; reaffirms, equally, the crucial importance of the integrity of the Rome Statute;
17. Notes with the utmost regret the recent announcements of withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which represent a challenge notably in terms of victims’ access to justice and which should be firmly condemned; welcomes the fact that both Gambia and South Africa have retracted their withdrawal notifications; strongly calls on the remaining country concerned to reconsider its decision; further calls on the EU to make all necessary efforts to ensure that no withdrawals take place, including through cooperation with the African Union; welcomes the fact that the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties has agreed to consider proposed amendments to the Rome Statute in order to address the African Union’s concerns raised during its special summit;
18. Calls on the four signatory states which have informed the UN Secretary-General that they no longer intend to become parties to the Rome Statute to reconsider their decisions; notes, moreover, that three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council are not parties to the Rome Statute;
19. Calls, furthermore, on all ICC States Parties to step up their efforts to promote universal accession to the ICC and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court; considers that the Commission and the EEAS, together with the Member States, should continue to encourage third countries to ratify and implement the Rome Statute and the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Court, and should also conduct an assessment of the EU’s achievements in this regard;
20. Underlines the importance of ensuring sufficient financial contributions to the Court for its effective functioning, either in the form of States Parties’ contributions or through EU funding mechanisms such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) or the European Development Fund (EDF), with particular attention being paid to funding for civil society actors working on promoting the international criminal justice system and ICC-related issues;
21. Welcomes the invaluable assistance provided by civil society organisations (CSOs) to the Court; is concerned at the reports of threats and intimidation directed at certain CSOs cooperating with the Court; calls for all necessary action to be taken to ensure a safe environment for CSOs to operate and cooperate with the Court and to address all threats and intimidation directed at them in that regard;
22. Takes note of the progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan of 12 July 2011 to follow up on the Council decision of 21 March 2011 on the ICC; calls for an evaluation of the implementation of the Action Plan in order to identify possible areas in which the effectiveness of EU action could be improved, including when it comes to promoting the integrity and the independence of the Court;
23. Urges all states having ratified the Rome Statute to fully cooperate with the ICC in its efforts to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for serious international crimes, to respect the authority of the ICC and to fully implement its decisions;
24. Strongly encourages the EU and its Member States to use all political and diplomatic tools at their disposal to support effective cooperation with the ICC, especially in relation to witness protection programmes and the execution of pending arrest warrants, with particular regard to the 13 suspects who are fugitives; calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the Council to agree on the adoption of concrete measures for responding to non-cooperation with the ICC, in addition to political statements;
25. Calls for the EU and its Member States to use all means towards third countries, including considering sanctions – in particular in the case of countries with situations under investigation by the ICC and countries under preliminary examination by the ICC – in order to bolster their political will to fully cooperate and to support their capacity to launch national proceedings on atrocity crimes; also calls on the EU and its Member States to offer full support to those countries in order to help them comply with the ICC requirements; calls on the Member States to fully comply with the Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008;
26. Considers that victims of atrocity crimes should be provided with access to effective and enforceable remedies and reparations; highlights the special role of victims and witnesses in proceedings before the Court and the need for specific measures aimed at ensuring their security and effective participation in accordance with the Rome Statute; calls on the EU and its Member States to keep victims’ rights at the heart of all actions in the fight against impunity and to voluntarily participate in the ICC Trust Fund for Victims;
27. Calls on the EEAS to ensure that accountability for atrocity crimes and support for the ICC is mainstreamed across the EU’s foreign policy priorities, including via the enlargement process, by systematically taking account of the fight against impunity; underlines, in this context, the important role of parliamentarians in promoting the ICC and the fight against impunity, including through interparliamentary cooperation;
28. Calls on the Member States to ensure that coordination and cooperation with the ICC is included in the mandate of the relevant regional EU Special Representatives (EUSRs); reiterates its call on the VP/HR to appoint an EUSR on International Humanitarian Law and International Justice with a mandate to promote, mainstream and represent the EU’s commitment to the fight against impunity and to the ICC across EU foreign policies;
29. Highlights the essential role of the European Parliament in monitoring EU action in this matter; welcomes the insertion of a section on the fight against impunity and the ICC in Parliament’s annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, and further suggests that Parliament should play a more proactive role by promoting and mainstreaming the fight against impunity and the ICC in all EU policies and institutions, in particular in the work of its committees responsible for external policies of the Union and its delegations for relations with third countries;
30. Stresses that the principle of complementarity of the ICC entails the primary responsibility of its States Parties to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes; expresses its concern that not all EU Member States have legislation defining those crimes under national law over which their courts can exercise jurisdiction; calls for the EU and its Member States to make full use of the ‘Advancing the principle of complementarity’ toolkit;
31. Encourages Member States to amend Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to add atrocity crimes to the list of crimes for which the EU has competences;
32. Strongly encourages the EU to prepare and provide resources for the preparation of an Action Plan on the Fight against Impunity within Europe for crimes falling under international law, with clear benchmarks for the EU institutions and the Member States aiming to strengthen national investigations and prosecutions for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;
33. Recalls that states, including EU Member States, can individually bring proceedings against other states to the International Court of Justice over breaches at state level of obligations arising from international treaties and conventions, including the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
34. Recalls its strong condemnation of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime in Syria, which can be considered as serious war crimes and crimes against humanity, and deplores the climate of impunity for perpetrators of such crimes in Syria;
35. Deplores the widespread lack of respect for international humanitarian law and the alarming rate of loss of civilian lives and attacks against civilian infrastructure in armed conflicts around the world; urges the international community to convene an international conference to prepare a new international mechanism for tracking and collecting data, and for publicly reporting on violations in the course of armed conflicts; reiterates its request to the VP/HR to present, on an annual basis, a public list of alleged perpetrators of attacks on schools and hospitals, for the purpose of defining appropriate EU action to halt such attacks;
36. Calls on the Member States to ratify the principal IHL instruments and other relevant legal instruments; acknowledges the importance of the EU Guidelines on promoting compliance with IHL, and reiterates its call on the VP/HR and the EEAS to step up their implementation, notably in relation to war crimes in the Middle East; calls on the EU to support initiatives aiming at spreading knowledge of IHL and good practices in its application, and calls on the EU to seize all bilateral tools at its disposal effectively in order to promote compliance with IHL by its partners, including through political dialogue;
37. Stresses that Member States should refuse to provide arms, equipment or financial or political support for governments or non-state actors violating international humanitarian law, including by committing rape or other sexual violence against women and children;
38. Calls, furthermore, for the EU and its Member States to support reform processes and national capacity-building efforts aimed at strengthening the independence of the judiciary, the law enforcement sector, the penitentiary system and reparation programmes in third countries directly affected by the alleged commission of such crimes, as committed to in the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015-2019; welcomes, in this context, the EU’s Framework on Support to Transitional Justice 2015, and looks forward to its effective implementation;
On the fight against impunity of non-state actors
39. Notes that international criminal law, and particularly the mandate and jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunals, have clearly defined the responsibility of individuals who are members of non-state groups in international crimes; stresses that this responsibility relates not only to such individuals but also to indirect co-perpetrators of international crimes; encourages all EU Member States to bring to justice state actors, non-state actors and individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide;
40. Emphasizes that the perpetration of violent crimes by ISIS/Daesh or other non-state actors against women and girls has been widely reported by the relevant international bodies, notes that the international legal community has been struggling to place those crimes within the international criminal framework;
41. Reaffirms, in this context, its strong condemnation of the heinous crimes and human rights violations committed by non-state actors such as Boko Haram in Nigeria and ISIS/Daesh in Syria and Iraq; is horrified at the vast range of crimes committed, including killings, torture, rape, enslavement and sexual slavery, recruitment of child soldiers, forced religious conversions and systematic killings directed at religious minorities, including Christians, Yazidis and others; recalls that sexual violence can, according to the ICC, amount to a war crime and a crime against humanity; believes that the prosecution of the perpetrators should be a priority for the international community;
42. Encourages the EU and its Member States to fight against impunity and to lend active support to international efforts to bring to justice members of non-state groups such as Boko Haram, ISIS/Daesh and any other actors committing crimes against humanity; calls for the development of a clear approach to the prosecution of ISIS/Daesh fighters and their abettors, including by using the expertise of the EU network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;
43. Emphasises that the EU and its Member States should support the prosecution of members of non-state groups such as ISIS/Daesh by seeking a consensus within the UN Security Council to confer jurisdiction to the ICC, as Syria and Iraq are not parties to the Rome Statute; underlines that the EU should explore and support, at international level and through all means, options to investigate and prosecute all crimes committed by all parties to the Syrian conflict, including ISIS/Daesh, such as the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq and Syria;
44. Deplores the veto exercised by Russia and China as Permanent Members of the UN Security Council against referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC Prosecutor under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and against adoption of a measure to punish Syria for using chemical weapons; calls for the EU to support swift action to reform the functioning of the UN Security Council, notably as regards the use of the right of veto, and, particularly, the French initiative to refrain from using that right when evidence of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity occurs;
45. Encourages an eventual call for the application of the principles defined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter with a view to compliance with the R2P principle, always under the auspices of the international community and with the authorisation of the UN Security Council;
46. Welcomes the Commission of Inquiry on Syria set up by the Human Rights Council and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) set up by the UN General Assembly to assist in the investigation of serious crimes committed in Syria; emphasises the need to set up a similar independent mechanism in Iraq, and calls on all EU Member States, all parties to the conflict in Syria, civil society and the UN system as a whole to cooperate fully with the IIIM and provide it with all information and documentation that they might possess to assist in the delivery of its mandate; thanks those EU Member States which have contributed financially to the IIIM, and calls on those who have not to do so;
47. Calls for the EU to adequately fund organisations that work on open source investigation and digital collection of evidence with regard to war crimes and crimes against humanity, in order to ensure accountability and bring perpetrators to justice;
48. Welcomes the EUʼs efforts to support the work of the Commission for International Justice and Accountability and of other NGOs that are documenting atrocity crimes; calls for the EU to provide direct support to Iraqi and Syrian civil society in gathering, preserving and protecting evidence of crimes committed in Iraq and Syria by any party to these conflicts, including ISIS/Daesh; calls for the collection and preservation of evidence, digital and otherwise, on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed by all sides to the conflict as a key step in the fight against impunity and a fundamental priority; supports the British, Belgian and Iraqi initiative at UN level (the ‘Bringing Daesh to Justice Coalition’), aimed at gathering evidence of the crimes committed by ISIS/Daesh in Syria and Iraq in order to facilitate their prosecution internationally, and calls on the EU Member States to join or support the coalition; further supports the activities of the Cultural Heritage Initiative and its fact-finding activities in Syria and Iraq related to the destruction of archaeological and cultural heritage;
49. Encourages the EU and its Member States to deploy all necessary actions to effectively sever the flow to ISIS/Daesh of resources ranging from guns, vehicles and cash revenues to many other types of assets;
50. Urges the EU to impose sanctions on those countries or authorities that directly or indirectly facilitate the flow of resources to ISIS/Daesh and thus contribute to the development of its terrorist criminal activity;
51. Emphasises that EU Member States should investigate all allegations and prosecute nationals of theirs and people under their jurisdiction who have committed, attempted to commit, or were complicit in atrocity crimes in Iraq and Syria or else refer them to the ICC in line with the Rome Statute; recalls, however, that prosecuting ISIS/Daesh members in the Member States can only be a complementary measure to international justice;
52. Underlines the importance of the Cooperation and Assistance Agreement between the EU and the ICC; calls on the Member States to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction in tackling impunity, and highlights its importance for the effectiveness and good functioning of the international criminal justice system; also calls on the Member States to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity in their national jurisdictions, including when those crimes have been committed in third countries or by third-country nationals;
53. Urges all the countries of the international community, including the EU Member States, to work actively on preventing and fighting radicalisation and to improve their legal and jurisdictional systems in order to avoid their nationals and residents joining ISIS/Daesh;
Μπορείτε –και πρέπει– να αναφέρετε παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Ακόμη και αν δε διώκονται, η δημοσιότητα ή η προοπτική μιας διερεύνησης μπορεί να έχει περιοριστικό αποτέλεσμα για τους δράστες.
Συμφωνώ με τις καταγγελίες για τα εγκλήματα που έχουν διαπραχθεί εναντίον της Ελλάδος μας με την εφαρμογή των μνημονίων.
Καλώ όλους τους φίλους μου να συμφωνήσουν και να υποστηρίξουν τις καταγγελίες αυτές.
Ομότιμος Καθηγητής Τεχνητής Νοημοσύνης Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών
Πρόεδρος της Συντονιστικής Επιτροπής του ΚΙΝΗ.Σ.Α.
Σχετικά με την υποστήριξη σας, σας πληροφορώ ότι μπορείτε να την εκδηλώσετε και εμπράκτως, υπογράφοντας το σχετικό ψήφισμα, εσείς προσωπικά, το κίνημα σας και όλα τα μέλη της χωριστά, έτσι ώστε με την συγκέντρωση μεγάλου αριθμού υπογραφών να έχουμε την δυνατότητα να ασκήσουμε πιέσεις στον εισαγγελέα και να τον αναγκάσουμε τελικά να ασχοληθεί με την υπόθεσή μας. Την υπόθεση της Ελλάδας δηλαδή.
εδώ το ψήφισμα στα ελληνικά :
Μετά από 9 χρόνια ανελέητης φοροκαταιγίδας, όπου έχουν επιβληθεί πάνω από 20 δις νέοι φόροι, ιδού τα αποτελέσματα:
Tα φορολογικά έσοδα εμφανίζονται μειωμένα σε σχέση με το 2009! Από την άλλη μεριά, το ΑΕΠ της χώρας έχει βυθιστεί σωρευτικά κατά 23%. (Πηγή: Υπ. Οικονομικών)
Μόνη λύση για να πάρει μπρος η οικονομία είναι η μείωση φόρων. Ιδανικά η θέσπιση ενός κοινού συντελεστή: 20% στο φόρο επιχειρήσεων, 20% στον ΦΠΑ, 20% στον φόρο εισοδήματος φυσικών προσώπων (είτε ενιαία είτεπροοδευτικά, δλδ τρεις συντελεστές 10%, 20% και 30%).
Το όποιο δημοσιονομικό κενό προκύψει θα καλυφθεί:
1ον) από τη μείωση της φοροδιαφυγής και την άνοδο της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας που θα συντελεστεί λόγω της ευεργετικής μείωσης των φόρων
2ον) από τον μηδενισμό του αχρείαστου υπερπλεονάσματος, που τα έτη 2016-18 ήταν κατά €1,8 δις υψηλότερο έναντι του στόχου (4,5% vs. 3,5% του ΑΕΠ)
3ον) από την περικοπή της σπατάλης. Ενδεικτικά:
α) το μηδενισμό των μετακλητών υπαλλήλων και την ανάκληση των κομματικών προσλήψεων,
β) τη συγχώνευση / κατάργηση εκατοντάδων οργανισμών «φαντασμάτων», που μάλιστα αρνήθηκαν να απογραφούν,
γ) τη μεταφορά δημόσιων υπηρεσιών σε κρατικά κτίρια. πχ το κτίριο «Κεράνης» που μένει ανενεργό για σχεδόν 20 χρόνια μπορεί να στεγάσει 2 υπουργεία,
δ) την αποτελεσματική διαχείριση του κατακερματισμένου συστήματος προμηθειών του δημοσίου, το οποίο απαρτίζεται από 6.500 αναθέτουσες αρχές (!) χωρίς ολοκληρωμένη ηλεκτρονική βάση δεδομένων,
ε) το νοικοκύρεμα των ζημιογόνων ΔΕΚΟ, όπου οι κομματικά διορισμένες διοικήσεις τους αφήνουν να εξελίσσεται ένα όργιο κακοδιαχείρισης
στ) την αντικατάσταση των δημόσιων λαμπτήρων ηλεκτρισμού παλαιάς τεχνολογίας με λάμπες εξοικονόμησης ενέργειας (ετήσιο κέρδος €60 εκατ !!!).