2012 Human Rights Alert submission for the UPR of the State of Israel - Figures and Charts

~A court, which refuses to certify its own records, is certified corrupt~

View the submission with figures as PDF: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82927700/

The Human Rights Alert submission is narrowly focused on Integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic record systems of the Supreme Court, District Courts, and Detainees� Courts of the State of Israel.

Allegations

Conditions, now prevailing in the electronic record systems of the national courts of the State of Israel, are in violations of any article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where integrity of the courts and the justice system is a prerequisite, as is the rule of law. Conditions, which have been established over the past decade should be deemed a simulated justice system, reflecting corruption of the courts, the Ministry of Justice, and the legal profession.

Similarities and differences compared to United States systems

The systems of the courts of the State of Israel, were developed and implemented with help from US-based corporations IBM and EDS. According to the 2010 State Ombudsman's Report 60b, the development and implementation of the systems was conducted in violation of various State laws and regulations.

The general fraudulent nature of the systems mimics similar systems, which have been implemented in the State (SUSTAIN) and the US courts (PACER, CM/ECF) a couple of decades earlier, and which are tightly linked to large-scale violations of Human Rights and failing banking regulation. However, in the case of the Israeli systems, the fraud is at times more blatant, and due to their more recent implementation, specific persons, dates, and events can be tied to the precipitous corruption of the electronic records of the courts.

Conclusion
No court of any nation should be permitted to implement its own electronic record system. It is a sure prescription for corruption of the courts.

Table of Contents
Figure 1: Identify of the servers of the Supreme Court is uncertified
Figure 2: Changes in the Supreme Courts certifications 2001-2003
Figure 3: Falsified electronic decision record of the Supreme Court
Figure 4: False certification stamp of the Supreme Court
Figure 5: Fraud in certification of Supreme Court decisions
Figure 6: Invalid electronic decision records of the District Courts
Chart 1: Lack of integrity in Detainees ID Numbers
Figure 7: Fraud in Apostille certification arrangement