Supreme Court of Israel, Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz
Jerusalem, March 27 – Human Rights Alert (NGO) has published a new draft submission for the 2012 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Human Rights in Israel by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations:
Draft EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, SHORT REPORT (REVISED)
Human Right Alert’s 2012 State of Israel UPR Submission:
Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic records of the courts
The Human Rights Alert submission is narrowly focused on Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the: Supreme Court, District Courts, Detainees’ Courts.
Conditions, now prevailing in the electronic records of the national courts of the State of Israel, are alleged as violations of any article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where integrity of the courts and the justice system is a prerequisite.
The underlying research was inspired by data mining and zero knowledge proofs. Serious deficiencies were identified in all systems, which were inspected. Three senior Israeli computing/cryptology experts expressed their concern/alarm.
In the Supreme Court, on or about March 7, 2002, integrity of the electronic records was compromised. Two large US data processing corporations were involved: IBM, EDS, jointly with the Administration of Courts in this “flag project”.
– The identity of the Supreme Court’s servers is uncertified;
– All electronic records are published online unsigned and uncertified, ‘subject to editing and phrasing changes’;
– Certifications by the late Chief Clerk Shmaryahu Cohen appear on judicial records, which were purportedly issued years after his death;
– The office of current Chief Clerk Sarah Lifschitz refuses to certify the decisions and other records of the Supreme Court;
– The Supreme Court routinely publishes simulated decisions and conducts simulated review; [[i]]
– “Sealing” is imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner;
– A fraudulent Apostille certification arrangement was jointly entered by the Ministry of Justice and the Courts to circumvent the refusal of the Chief Clerks to certify the courts’ records; the arrangement is published, unsigned and undated on the Judicial Authority’s web site, while invoking the authority of an unnamed Minister of Justice.
The findings are compounded by various conflicts of interests of legal and computing experts.
Such findings should require re-assessment of the validity of any other legal public records, provided by the State of Israel, and employed in the UPR process. Member nations, who are parties to the Hague Apostille Convention (1961), and others, should reassess any faith and credit, which are given to legal public records originating in the State of Israel.
Recommendation include, but are not limited to, the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
View as PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82927700/
[i] “Simulated litigation” [Halich le-Mar’it Ayin – jz], “simulated decisions” [Ketav Bei Din le-Mar’it Ayin – jz], “simulated service”, “simulated justice system” here refer to felonies, defined in the Texas Criminal Code as follows:
Texas Penal Code §32.48. SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to:
(1) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to:
(A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or
(B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document.
(b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered.