Nuremberg 2.0

For Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition

8/20/202615 min read

For Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition

Petition for a Transitional Justice Process Concerning the Harms, Decisions and Responsibilities Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic, Large-Scale Environmental and Technological Interventions, and the Growing Exposure of Populations to New Technologies of Potential Relevance to Human Health

We, the undersigned citizens, consider that no democratic society can close a period of historic crisis simply by declaring that the emergency has ended.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly altered the lives of billions of people.

It caused deaths, illness, suffering, isolation, economic disruption, educational disruption, family separation and social consequences whose full extent has yet to be determined.

But it also produced an extraordinary concentration of political and administrative power, the adoption of unprecedented measures in peacetime and the implementation of policies that directly affected fundamental rights, freedom of movement, education, employment, economic activity, privacy and individual autonomy.

At the same time, the pandemic brought fundamental questions to the centre of public debate concerning the origin of pathogens, high-risk research, gain-of-function, biosafety, scientific funding, conflicts of interest, institutional transparency and political accountability.

These questions cannot be closed for political convenience.

Research into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 continues to present unresolved questions. The investigation into the origins of the virus has not established a definitive explanation and significant information remains unavailable for a complete assessment of all hypotheses.

The existence of such disagreement is not a reason to choose a narrative in advance.

It is a reason to investigate.

At the same time, humanity has developed or is investigating technologies capable of deliberately intervening in atmospheric and climatic systems on a planetary scale.

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), including concepts such as stratospheric aerosol injection, is now the subject of international research and institutional debate. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has recognised that these technologies may involve significant environmental and social risks and uncertainties.

Here too, we do not accept that society must choose between blind belief and outright rejection.

We demand data.

We demand transparency.

We demand independent investigation.

And where harm and responsibility are demonstrated, we demand justice.

It is in this context that we propose a process of transitional justice.

Transitional justice seeks to address situations involving serious violations through mechanisms of truth, justice, reparation, memory and guarantees of non-repetition.

We therefore do not propose a people's trial.

We do not propose predetermined convictions.

We do not propose replacing science with courts, or courts with public opinion.

We propose creating an independent and democratic mechanism capable of discovering what happened, who knew, who decided, what harms occurred, who should be held accountable and how similar situations can be prevented from happening again.

I — THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

1. The Origin of SARS-CoV-2

The first obligation of any process of justice is to establish the truth.

The origin of SARS-CoV-2 must be investigated without ruling out any hypothesis in advance.

The investigation should cover:

zoonotic origin;
possible transmission through intermediate hosts;
research conducted on coronaviruses before 2020;
gain-of-function research;
research involving increased pathogenicity or pandemic potential;
genetic or experimental manipulation of coronaviruses;
public and private funding;
international collaboration;
transfer of samples;
biosafety conditions;
laboratory incidents;
illnesses or accidents involving laboratory workers;
genetic databases and sequences;
disappearance or unavailability of data;
communications between researchers and authorities;
communications between governments and international organisations;
and possible attempts to conceal, destroy or withhold information.

No hypothesis should be prohibited from investigation.

Nor should any hypothesis be transformed into truth by political decision.

The investigation must be conducted on the basis of verifiable evidence and subjected to scientific scrutiny and adversarial examination.

II — GAIN-OF-FUNCTION AND HIGH-RISK BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The pandemic made it impossible to ignore a fundamental question:

how far should scientific research go when the knowledge acquired may also increase the risk of a pandemic?

Scientific research can produce enormous benefits.

But certain experiments involving potentially pandemic pathogens may also involve extraordinary risks.

We therefore demand an independent and international audit of high-risk research conducted before the pandemic.

That audit should determine:

which agents were studied;
which experiments were conducted;
what modifications were introduced;
which techniques were used;
who funded the projects;
which institutions were involved;
which biosafety levels were used;
what containment protocols existed;
what incidents were recorded;
which incidents were reported;
which incidents were not reported;
what oversight mechanisms existed;
who authorised the experiments;
what information was transmitted to authorities;
and whether all applicable national and international biosafety standards were followed.

The question is not to criminalise science.

The question is to determine whether extraordinary risks were assumed in the name of all humanity without humanity being informed of them.

III — THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PANDEMIC

The investigation must not end with the origin of the virus.

It must also investigate the political, scientific, economic and administrative response to the pandemic.

The following should be scrutinised:

declarations of emergency;
lockdowns;
closures;
restrictions on movement;
restrictions on assembly;
school closures;
measures applied to children and young people;
isolation of elderly people;
quarantines;
testing policies;
vaccination policies;
health certificates;
mask policies;
hospital protocols;
available treatments;
decisions concerning medicines;
risk communication;
epidemiological models;
models used to justify decisions;
procurement;
public contracts;
acquisition of medicines and vaccines;
relations between governments, pharmaceutical companies and international organisations;
conflicts of interest;
funding of scientific organisations;
influence of economic interests;
mechanisms of censorship and information moderation;
and decisions based on information subsequently considered incorrect or insufficient.

We do not assume that all measures were wrong.

We do not assume that all measures were correct.

We demand that they be assessed.

An emergency does not automatically make a decision correct.

Nor does it automatically make a decision wrong or criminal.

Each decision must be assessed in light of the information available at the time, the proportionality of the measure, its benefits, its risks, the alternatives available and the harms produced.

IV — HARMS CAUSED BY THE PANDEMIC AND BY PANDEMIC RESPONSES

A serious assessment must distinguish harms directly caused by the virus from harms caused or aggravated by institutional responses.

Among others, the following should be investigated:

deaths;
prolonged illness;
long-term consequences;
delayed diagnoses;
interruption of treatment;
social isolation;
deterioration of mental health;
job losses;
bankruptcies;
loss of income;
interruption of education;
consequences for children;
consequences for elderly people;
family separation;
domestic violence;
economic inequality;
impacts on public services;
and proven violations of fundamental rights.

Whenever a sufficiently substantiated causal relationship can be established between a decision and a harm, that relationship should be documented.

Where legal responsibility exists, it should be determined by the competent authorities.

V — GEOENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION

The second major area of this investigation concerns humanity's growing technological capacity to deliberately intervene in the environment.

This does not mean conflating all forms of geoengineering.

Nor does it mean claiming that any atmospheric phenomenon constitutes evidence of human intervention.

It means recognising an unavoidable reality:

technologies and research programmes exist that are intended to deliberately alter certain properties of the Earth's climate or atmospheric system.

The United Nations Environment Programme identifies Solar Radiation Modification as a group of technologies intended to reflect part of incoming solar radiation back into space, temporarily reducing warming.

These technologies raise questions concerning:

atmospheric chemistry;
atmospheric circulation;
precipitation;
hydrological systems;
agriculture;
biodiversity;
the ozone layer;
human health;
geographical distribution of impacts;
transboundary responsibility;
environmental justice;
sovereignty;
and democratic governance.

The international community itself recognises that there are significant uncertainties regarding the potential effects of these technologies.

Therefore, any programme of this nature must be subject to public scrutiny proportionate to its scale.

VI — WHAT IS BEING PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE?

We demand an independent investigation into any programmes, experiments or activities that may involve the deliberate release of particles, aerosols or other compounds into the atmosphere.

The investigation should determine:

what substances were used;
in what quantities;
in which locations;
at what altitudes;
through which methods;
how frequently;
by whom;
with what funding;
for what purpose;
under what authorisation;
with what monitoring;
and with what impact assessment.

It should also investigate possible consequences of atmospheric deposition on:

soils;
water;
rivers;
lakes;
oceans;
vegetation;
agricultural crops;
animals;
food chains;
and human health.

The presence of a particular chemical element should not automatically be presumed to constitute evidence of geoengineering.

But neither should the natural occurrence of a substance be used to prevent investigation where anomalies exist that merit explanation.

The question must be scientific:

what is the substance, what is its concentration, what is its distribution, what is its origin, and what mechanism explains its presence?

VII — CHEMICAL RESIDUES AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

We propose the creation of an independent network for atmospheric and environmental monitoring.

This network should allow systematic and public collection of data concerning:

atmospheric composition;
particles;
aerosols;
precipitation;
soils;
surface waters;
groundwater;
sediments;
vegetation;
and other relevant environmental indicators.

Depending on scientific justification, analyses may include:

metals and trace elements;
aluminium;
barium;
strontium;
sulphates;
nitrates;
ultrafine particles;
nanoparticles;
persistent organic compounds;
and other materials whose presence may warrant further investigation.

The results should be made available in open and auditable formats.

Universities, independent laboratories and citizens should be able to analyse the data.

Environmental science should not depend exclusively on entities that may have an interest in the outcome.

VIII — 5G, RADIOFREQUENCY AND ELECTROMAGNETIC EXPOSURE

The third area of investigation concerns the global expansion of mobile telecommunications networks and, in particular, the deployment of 5G technologies and the growing exposure of populations to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

This issue must be addressed with the same demand for independent scientific scrutiny applied to other technologies with potential implications for human health.

The World Health Organization recognises that the possible health effects of radiofrequency exposure must be assessed across the relevant spectrum and that, for frequencies specifically used by 5G, research was initially more limited. The WHO has also indicated the need for continued assessment of long-term effects as the technology is deployed and new data become available.

Recent studies and reviews continue to identify questions warranting further research into certain biological and health effects associated with radiofrequency exposure.

Therefore, it should not be sufficient merely to demonstrate that exposure levels comply with particular regulatory limits.

It is necessary to determine whether those limits remain adequate in light of:

new technologies;
new frequencies;
new modulation patterns;
greater antenna density;
greater cumulative exposure;
prolonged exposure;
exposure of children;
exposure during pregnancy;
occupational exposure;
and simultaneous exposure to multiple radiofrequency sources.

An independent and up-to-date assessment of the potential effects of prolonged exposure to radiofrequency radiation should be conducted, including the specific frequencies and characteristics used by 5G networks.

The investigation should cover, among other areas:

carcinogenicity;
genotoxicity;
oxidative stress;
neurological effects;
cognitive effects;
sleep;
fertility;
foetal development;
childhood development;
cardiovascular effects;
endocrine effects;
immune-system effects;
permeability of biological barriers;
tissue effects;
cumulative effects;
and potential effects resulting from chronic low-intensity exposure.

It should also be investigated whether currently used exposure limits were established on the basis of all biologically relevant effects or whether they primarily focus on known thermal effects.

Exposure limits should be periodically reviewed in light of technological developments and scientific evidence.

No technology should be considered definitively safe simply because it complies with a limit established on the basis of knowledge available at a particular time.

IX — 5G, THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE

The following should be investigated:

who established exposure limits;
which studies formed the basis for those limits;
which studies were excluded;
what criteria were used to assess study quality;
what conflicts of interest exist between researchers, regulators and industry;
who funds the research;
what independent studies have been conducted;
what knowledge gaps remain;
and whether those gaps are sufficiently significant to justify additional precautionary measures.

The existence of studies finding no adverse effects does not eliminate the need to investigate contradictory findings.

Likewise, the existence of studies finding effects should not automatically be transformed into proof of causality.

The objective should be to establish a robust, independent, transparent and continuously updated scientific assessment.

X — TECHNOLOGY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SOVEREIGNTY

The pandemic, high-risk biological research, geoengineering and the expansion of radiofrequency technologies are fundamentally different phenomena.

They should not be conflated.

We do not claim that they share the same origin.

We do not claim that they operate through the same mechanisms.

We do not claim that the same actors are involved.

We do not even claim that every allegation associated with any of these subjects is true.

But they all raise a fundamental question:

what happens when technological and institutional power reaches a scale greater than the capacity for democratic scrutiny?

In all these domains, decisions can produce consequences extending beyond national borders.

In all of them, there are asymmetries between those who possess information, technical capacity and decision-making power and those who bear the consequences.

And in all of them there is a fundamental democratic necessity:

power must be investigable.

If harm caused by negligence, abuse, corruption, illegality or consciously taken decisions against public safety is discovered, mechanisms of accountability must exist.

If deliberate acts intended to cause harm to civilian populations are discovered, they should be assessed under applicable national and international law, including, where the legal elements are met, international criminal law.

It is not the role of a petition to determine these conclusions in advance.

It is its role to demand that they be investigated.

XI — THE COMMON ELEMENT

The COVID-19 pandemic, high-risk biological research, geoengineering and the expansion of radiofrequency technologies are different phenomena.

We do not claim that they have the same origin.

We do not claim that they have the same mechanism.

We do not claim that the same actors are involved.

But they share one characteristic:

they all involve technologies or decisions capable of affecting human populations on a scale far greater than that of the people directly involved in their development or use.

In the case of the pandemic, the issue concerns the ability of biological agents to produce global consequences and the ability of States to respond through extraordinary measures.

In the case of geoengineering, the issue concerns the possibility of deliberately intervening in environmental systems shared by all humanity.

In the case of 5G and radiofrequency, the issue concerns the progressive and widespread exposure of populations to electromagnetic technologies whose global deployment continues while scientific debate over all possible long-term consequences remains active.

In all these cases there is a common question:

what level of evidence is required before entire populations are exposed to a potential risk?

And there is a second:

who decides what level of risk is acceptable?

XII — TRUTH

The first demand is truth.

We propose the creation of an Independent Commission for Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition.

The Commission should be independent from governments, political parties, companies, international organisations and economic interests.

It should have the power to:

request documentation;
summon experts;
collect testimony;
analyse data;
commission independent research;
protect whistleblowers;
request access to archives;
compare contradictory accounts;
reconstruct timelines;
identify conflicts of interest;
and publish substantiated findings.

Its work should be public, except where strictly necessary to protect personal data, legitimate security interests or fundamental rights.

Truth should not belong to any institution.

XIII — JUSTICE

The Commission should identify possible individual and institutional responsibilities.

Where there are indications of:

crimes;
corruption;
fraud;
gross negligence;
abuse of power;
concealment of information;
destruction of evidence;
violation of fundamental rights;
breach of biosafety standards;
unlawful experimentation;
environmental damage;
improper exposure of populations to risks;
or other unlawful acts,

those findings should be referred to the competent authorities.

No person should be above the law by virtue of their position.

No institution should be beyond investigation by virtue of its influence.

But no person should be considered guilty before a fair process.

Justice is not revenge.

Justice is accountability according to rules.

XIV — REPARATION

Truth without reparation is incomplete.

A mechanism should be created to assess and repair harms demonstrably attributable to unlawful or improperly conducted acts or omissions.

Reparation may include, depending on each case:

financial compensation;
restitution;
rehabilitation;
support for victims;
public recognition;
restoration of rights;
economic recovery measures;
support for affected communities;
and other appropriate forms of reparation.

Reparation should be proportional to the harm and based on transparent criteria.

XV — MEMORY

A society that forgets its mistakes is condemned to repeat them.

We propose the creation of a Public Archive of the Pandemic, Biosafety, and High-Impact Technological and Environmental Interventions, bringing together:

documents;
decisions;
contracts;
studies;
data;
communications;
testimonies;
reports;
scientific findings;
and the conclusions of the Commission.

The testimonies of affected people should also be preserved.

Not to construct an official narrative.

But to preserve the plurality of experiences and allow future generations to reconstruct what happened.

XVI — GUARANTEES OF NON-REPETITION

Transitional justice will only be complete when institutions are reformed.

We propose:

clear limits on executive power during emergencies;
effective parliamentary oversight;
judicial review of extraordinary measures;
citizen participation in high-impact decisions;
scientific transparency;
declaration and oversight of conflicts of interest;
whistleblower protection;
transparency of research funding;
independent audits of high-risk biological research;
strengthened international biosafety standards;
international mechanisms for geoengineering oversight;
independent environmental monitoring;
periodic review of radiofrequency exposure standards;
independent research into new telecommunications technologies;
public access to scientific data;
independent assessment of impacts on fundamental rights;
and mechanisms for transnational accountability.

An emergency cannot become a permanent state of exception.

Technological innovation cannot become a licence to experiment on populations without their knowledge.

And the existence of regulation cannot permanently be used as a substitute for scientific investigation.

XVII — DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION

Decisions capable of affecting millions of people cannot be made exclusively within closed circles of experts, governments or corporations.

Democracy does not require every citizen to be an expert in virology, epidemiology, atmospheric chemistry, climatology, bioengineering or radiofrequency physics.

It requires citizens to be able to:

know the facts;
know the uncertainties;
know the risks;
hear different positions;
question decision-makers;
participate in defining the rules;
and hold those exercising power accountable.

We therefore propose permanent mechanisms of public participation, including consultations, public hearings, citizens' assemblies and other deliberative instruments appropriate to the complexity of these matters.

Popular sovereignty does not end when an issue becomes technically complex.

The greater the technical power, the greater the quality of democratic scrutiny must be.

XVIII — A NEW ARCHITECTURE OF HUMAN SECURITY

The experience of COVID-19 and the development of technologies capable of modifying biological, environmental and technological systems require us to rethink the concept of security.

Security is not merely military security.

It also includes:

biological security;
health security;
environmental security;
food security;
water security;
technological security;
information security;
protection against potentially harmful exposures;
and protection of fundamental rights.

A threat to humanity does not necessarily have to take the form of conventional warfare.

It may result from a scientific decision.

A laboratory experiment.

A public policy.

A biosafety failure.

An environmental intervention.

An insufficiently studied technological exposure.

A chain of administrative decisions.

Or a combination of several of these circumstances.

Our mechanisms of prevention and accountability must therefore evolve as well.

XIX — NO IMPUNITY, NO PREJUDGED CONVICTION

This petition does not ask that anyone be considered guilty for subscribing to a particular hypothesis.

It does not ask that a theory be transformed into truth.

It does not ask that science be replaced by beliefs.

It does not ask that courts convict without evidence.

It does not ask for revenge.

It asks for something more fundamental:

independent investigation.

If a particular allegation is false, the investigation should demonstrate it.

If a particular hypothesis is incorrect, the investigation should demonstrate it.

If a particular decision was justified, the investigation should demonstrate it.

If there was error, negligence or abuse, it should be demonstrated.

If there was a crime, it should be prosecuted.

And if there was a structure of power capable of producing or concealing harm on an extraordinary scale, that structure should be reformed.

XX — THE NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE

The name Nuremberg 2.0 is used in this petition as a symbol of one principle:

no political, scientific, military or economic authority should be above accountability for the acts it commits.

Power does not absolve.

Authority does not absolve.

Emergency does not absolve.

Science does not absolve.

Bureaucracy does not absolve.

And obedience to orders should not, by itself, eliminate individual responsibility where the law establishes that responsibility.

But Nuremberg also represents another principle:

responsibility must be determined through due process, evidence and justice.

That is the principle we seek to recover.

We do not want people's courts.

We want institutions capable of investigating power itself.

XXI — OUR DEMAND

We, the undersigned citizens, call upon the competent authorities to establish a process of post-COVID transitional justice, endowed with independence, transparency and public participation, with the purpose of:

1. Establishing the truth about the origin of COVID-19

Including independent investigation of zoonotic and laboratory hypotheses, gain-of-function research, funding, biosafety, laboratory incidents and the availability of information.

2. Investigating pandemic management

Including the political, administrative, scientific and economic decisions made during the emergency.

3. Determining harms

Distinguishing harms caused by the disease from harms caused or aggravated by institutional responses.

4. Investigating geoengineering and environmental modification programmes

Including research, funding, experimentation, potential deployment and oversight mechanisms.

5. Investigating potential environmental exposures

Including independent analysis of the atmosphere, precipitation, soils, water and ecosystems whenever there are scientific reasons to investigate particular substances or environmental changes.

6. Investigating 5G technologies and radiofrequency exposure

Including independent assessment of the potential effects of prolonged exposure, the adequacy of current safety limits, existing scientific gaps, conflicts of interest, independent research and potential impacts on different population groups.

7. Determining responsibilities

Referring to competent authorities any evidence of crimes, corruption, gross negligence, abuse of power, violations of rights, improper exposure to risks or other unlawful acts.

8. Creating mechanisms of reparation

For people and communities that have suffered harm demonstrably associated with unlawful or improperly conducted acts or omissions.

9. Preserving memory

Through a permanent public archive of events, documents, data and testimonies.

10. Creating guarantees of non-repetition

By reforming oversight mechanisms for health emergencies, high-risk biological research, large-scale environmental interventions and the deployment of technologies with potential impacts on human health.

11. Strengthening democracy

By creating permanent mechanisms of transparency, public participation, parliamentary oversight, judicial review and citizen deliberation concerning decisions that may profoundly affect the health and freedom of populations.

CONCLUSION

History will judge our generation not only by the mistakes it made, but also by its ability to acknowledge them.

COVID-19 demonstrated that a health crisis can rapidly transform the relationship between citizen and State.

Biotechnology has demonstrated that humanity's ability to intervene in living organisms is increasing.

Geoengineering demonstrates that the capacity for human intervention can reach environmental systems on a planetary scale.

Telecommunications demonstrate that new forms of technological exposure can become virtually universal before scientific debate concerning all their possible long-term consequences has been concluded.

We cannot wait for the next crisis to force us once again to discover, in real time, who had power, who had information and who had the capacity to question.

We must build mechanisms of scrutiny now.

Because democracy does not merely consist of choosing who governs.

It also consists of ensuring that those who govern, those who research, those who fund, those who decide and those who exercise power can be called to account before society.

When there are legitimate questions, we investigate.

When there are victims, we repair.

When there is responsibility, we hold those responsible accountable.

When institutions are inadequate, we reform them.

When new dangers arise, we create new safeguards.

And when technological and political power threatens to exceed the boundaries of democratic accountability, society must have mechanisms to contain it.

We do not ask for a new narrative.

We ask for the possibility of discovering the truth.

We do not ask for predetermined convictions.

We ask for justice.

We do not ask for the past to be erased.

We ask for it to be documented.

We do not ask for guarantees that nothing similar will ever happen again.

We demand institutions capable of preventing it from happening again.

We therefore call for the creation of a genuine post-COVID transitional justice process, founded upon the principles of:

TRUTH.
JUSTICE.
REPARATION.
MEMORY.
NON-REPETITION.

Because no democracy is strong enough to dispense with truth.

And no society is truly free if those who exercise power cannot be investigated.