Crimes Against Humanity

Lockdowns are presented as a public health measure by government, contradicting the overwhelming evidence that they are extremely destructive to public health and fail to impact SARS-CoV-2 contagion. This begs the question, if lockdowns are not a public health measure, what are they? 

We know that lockdown policies do not exist to protect public health, or to offer a benefit of any kind to society. We also know that they take power and money away from the 99% and towards those at the top of the political and economic ladder. The ruling class elevates themselves to deities while reducing the rest of us to slaves.

With no public benefit and gigantic harm born upon society, lockdowns are not a legitimate public policy. Various forms of social distancing laws affect most of the world’s population, causing severe economic, social, physical, and psychological harm. They can only be regarded as the largest crime against humanity in history. It is therefore imperative to prosecute the perpetrators of the lockdown-based COVID-19 response to end the terror and send a strong message that these violations of freedoms will never again be tolerated. Never again.

The Commission recommended trying approximately 900 people that it believed were responsible for the war. It also wanted to try those responsible for the slaying of over a million Armenian residents of Turkey by the government of Turkey under the principles of humanity. The international war tribunal never took place due to the lack of cooperation by the German government, although a small number of the accused were tried by the German government itself and received relatively minor sentences.

The legal concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ (CAH) as we know it today was born at the close of the Second World War. The Nuremberg Charter (aka London Charter) was created in 1945 by the International Military Tribunal to prosecute a small number of individuals responsible for the war. Unlike WWI, the WWII tribunal was not blocked by the German government. It took place in Nuremberg, Germany from 1945 to 1949. It was also in this time frame that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was held. The Genocide Convention applies both during time of war and time of peace.

Following the small Nuremberg Trial of WWII war criminals, crimes against humanity did not receive much attention in international law until the 1990s. In the 90s, there were three major developments that would entrench crimes against humanity firmly in the international community. The first of these was the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which commenced in 1993 for war crimes alleged in the Balkans in the early 90s. Below is the Article of the ICTY related to crimes against humanity.

(a) murder; 

(b) extermination; 

(c) enslavement; 

(d) deportation; 

(e) imprisonment; 

(f) torture; 

(g) rape; 

(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; 

(i) other inhumane acts. 

Since this Statute was adopted in 1993, it has formed the basis for the definition of crimes against humanity in international law. The following year, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was created with an identical definition of crimes against humanity, but with the addition that it had to be based on prejudice.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Article 3: Crimes Against Humanity 

The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds:

(a) Murder; 

(b) Extermination; 

(c) Enslavement; 

(d) Deportation; 

(e) Imprisonment; 

(f) Torture; 

(g) Rape; 

(h) Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; 

(i) Other inhumane acts.

In 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) commenced operations. It has 123 member countries and its founding document, the Rome Statute (1998), is often referenced as expressing international consensus on the issue of crimes against humanity. Many countries have domestic laws of crimes against humanity explicitly adopting the Rome Statute for definitions and elucidations of the crimes.

International Criminal Court – Rome Statute

Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity 

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: 

(a) Murder; 

(b) Extermination; 

(c) Enslavement; 

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; 

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; 

(f) Torture; 

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; 

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons; 

(j) The crime of apartheid; 

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Below is the article of CAH in latest edition for the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. This document of the International Law Commission of the United Nations was first adopted in 1954. Don’t let the term “draft” mislead you. It is one of the most important references for the most serious of crimes including crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, and the crime of aggression (ie. war-making).

Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)

Article 18: Crimes Against Humanity 

A crime against humanity means any of the following acts, when committed in a systematic manner or on a large scale and instigated or directed by a Government or by any organization or group: 

(a) Murder; 

(b) Extermination; 

(c) Torture; 

(d) Enslavement; 

(e) Persecution on political, racial, religious or ethnic grounds; 

(f) Institutionalized discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds involving the violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms and resulting in seriously disadvantaging a part of the population; 

(g) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population; 

(h) Arbitrary imprisonment; 

(i) Forced disappearance of persons; 

(j) Rape, enforced prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse; 

(k) Other inhumane acts which severely damage physical or mental integrity, health or human dignity, such as mutilation and severe bodily harm.

OIA exists to encase egregious acts that may not fit into the other enumerated categories. It would be a shame for mass atrocities to be allowed because there does not exist a specific category for it. A paradox of law is that the more specific a law, the easier it is to circumnavigate it. As one ICTY chamber elaborated: “other inhumane acts” was “designed as a residual category, as it was felt to be undesirable for this category to be exhaustively enumerated. An exhaustive categorization would merely create opportunities for evasion of the letter of the prohibition.”

Commenting on the OIA in the Geneva Convention, the International Committee of the Red Cross put it elegantly: 

Besides, it is always dangerous to try to go into too much detail — especially in this domain. However much care were taken in establishing a list of all the various forms of infliction, one would never be able to catch up with the imagination of future torturers who wished to satisfy their bestial instincts; and the more specific and complete a list tries to be, the more restrictive it becomes. The form of wording adopted is flexible and, at the same time, precise (ICRC, 1952).

Let’s refer again to the Draft Code for the reasons for the existence of this category and its required elements:

The Commission recognized that it was impossible to establish an exhaustive list of the inhumane acts which might constitute crimes against humanity. It should be noted that the notion of other inhumane acts is circumscribed by two requirements. First, this category of acts is intended to include only additional acts that are similar in gravity to those listed in the preceding subparagraphs. Secondly, the act must in fact cause injury to a human being in terms of physical or mental integrity, health or human dignity. 

A third element for OIA:

The act or omission was committed deliberately with: a. intent to cause, or b. knowledge that the act was likely to, or would probably, cause, serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitute a serious attack on human dignity and the perpetrator was reckless or indifferent as to whether such consequences would result from his act or omission (Dubler & Kalyk, 2018).

A further element of an ‘other inhumane acts’ charge is that it cannot be used if the defendant can be charged with the same offense under another of the listed forms of crimes against humanity. The lockdown-and-horror-based response to SARS-CoV-2 relates to a number of forms of crimes against humanity. Methods of Torture and Identifying Torture describe how the pandemic response meets the criteria for torture and other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment. The entire website argues that lockdowns are unconstitutional, fraudulent, unnecessary, and severely harmful, thus amounting to the ‘imprisonment’ CAH.

For the unconvinced, this article will explore how the final category of crimes against humanity, other inhumane acts (OIA), also applies to the heads of government around the world that have shut down life within their borders. In many cases the crime of forcible transfer of population or the crime of persecution also apply to the actions of these politicians. In the developing world, sadly lockdowns have caused starvation at the level of the crime of extinction.

The element of intentionality contained in the OIA definition, however, should be addressed here. An essential element for any CAH is the knowledge of the act by the accused and either the intention to commit widespread harm, or the knowledge that the act has the potential to cause widespread harm. 

Lockdowns were probably not put in place to intentionally cause suffering for the sake of it, yet all of the harms that it caused were certain to occur. Take children out of school, even for a few months, and you will decrease their aggregate future educational attainment and earnings. Put healthcare on hold and people will suffer from medical conditions and die sooner. Make people stay home alone for over two weeks and they will disintegrate mentally and become severely depressed. If people are prevented from working, they will become poor and their employers will go out of business. Bombard people with fear-inducing news everyday and they will become consumed by fear and anxiety. 

An unavoidable indicator of the foreseeability of the severe harm of large-scale lockdowns is that they were used for the first time in history in China in January 2020. Prior to that, lockdowns were universally rejected by the public health field internationally and were not a part of any country’s pandemic preparedness plan.

Any rational person could have foreseen that the results of each of these actions by Covidist rulers were certain to occur. From experience and from scientific studies, we know now in 2021 that all of these results did occur — to a spectacular degree. Incriminatingly, many politicians continued to commit these horrific acts despite the backlash and mountain of evidence that they were causing unjustifiable harm. In some places, like Brazil and India, or the state of Florida, politicians saw the harm that was caused within a few months and withdrew the measures. Nevertheless, lockdowns cause such enormous, long-term harm in a short period of time that their perpetrators must be held to account, regardless of the lockdown duration. To turn a blind eye to such crimes against humanity is to allow them to recur.

The lockdown-terror pandemic response meets the CAH criterium for being a widespread, systemic attack on a civilian population. (They would be classified as “war crimes” if they were perpetrated against military personnel.) Lockdowns have been implemented at city, state, and national levels. Although governments refer to them as “public health” measures, they are actually an attack on the entire civilian population using unconventional warfare. 

The pandemic response crime against humanity exists to generate power and prestige for rulers, make billions of dollars in profit for vaccine manufacturers, break down civilization in order to rebuild it under socialist auspices, and enrich the portfolios of the world’s wealthiest men. In April 2021, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated “there has been a $5 trillion surge in the wealth of the world’s richest in the past year.”

They correlate with existing serious crimes, except on a much broader scale.

The lockdown/vaccine-based pandemic response mimics many person-to-person crimes, but on a massive scale. In a strict lockdown, people are forced to stay at home, akin to the crime of taking hostages or kidnapping. Vaccinations are becoming effectively mandatory in many countries. Not only does that violate medical ethics because it is forcing an experimental medical procedure upon others, jamming a sharp object into another’s body against her will is decidedly assault with a weapon. 

The job loss and economic devastation resulting from social distancing laws and messaging — none of it resulting from directly from COVID-19 — have caused a large reduction of income for billions of people. That is equivalent to having a large amount of money stolen from each of these people — the crime of theft. For hundreds of millions of people, this has meant sliding into extreme poverty, often to the point of starvation, according to the UN. 

For the first few months of lockdown, healthcare was all but halted around the world. Only emergency medicine and intensive care were practiced. Hundreds of millions of people have been forced to endure horrible suffering due to lack of medical attention. The pain and disability that people have endured from this are similar to the effects of repeated assaults. 

The anxiety experienced by lockdown victims has also caused direct physical problems. For instance, headaches and stomach aches. Tooth chipping has soared since the lockdown. People have such severe anxiety that they grind their teeth and chip them. Sadistic lockdown bullies have found a way to “rearrange people’s teeth” without using their knuckles. Mask mandates are another form of indirect assault. It prevents people from breathing properly, like when a bully smothers his hand over someone’s mouth.

They involve severe violations of human rights.

Overlapping with the criminal aspect of CAH is their violations of human rights. It is an overlap because all criminal laws come down to rights violations. Eg. theft violates the right to own property; kidnapping violates the right to freedom. However, crimes against humanity are more than existing crimes on a wider scale. The Rome Statute names persecution and apartheid as CAH, for instance. These are perhaps more accurately described as human rights violations than person-to-person crimes. Other inhumane acts, as will be described below, have been viewed along the lines of astute violations of human rights.

In a 2011 arrest warrant for Muammar Gaddafi, the International Criminal Court (ICC) stated that his Security Forces in Libya committed “inhuman acts that severely deprived the civilian population of its fundamental rights.” The ICTY has made a number of rulings which stated that violations of rights were a crime against humanity. For instance, in the judgment for the Krnojelac case by the ICTY, it was stated that solely “gross or blatant violations of fundamental human rights” can meet the gravity test for a crime against humanity.

The United Nations Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Humankind has used the expression “systemic or mass violations of human rights” from 1991 to 1996. Before and after that five-year period, the Draft Code rather used the expression “crimes against humanity.” This clearly demonstrates how CAH and mass violations of human rights are essentially the same concept. 

In the Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui case, the ICC concluded that inhumane acts as crimes against humanity are:

…considered as serious violations of international customary law and the basic rights pertaining to human beings, drawn from the norms of international human rights law, which are of a similar nature and gravity to the acts referred to in article 7(1) of the Statute.

Also in the Katanga and Ngudjolo Chui case, Judge Anita Usacka posited that other inhumane acts “cover serious violations of human rights not specifically enumerated” if they are sufficiently serious. The International Commission of Investigation on Darfur (Sudan) has also stated that serious human rights violations constitute crimes against humanity if the CAH legal elements (eg. widespread, serious) are present.

Social distancing mandates qualify as ‘other inhumane acts’ of crimes against humanity because they violate many fundamental rights bestowed in international human rights law and in domestic constitutions. Read more about how these mandates violate rights and lack the qualities to lawfully suspend those rights.

They profoundly degrade the dignity of the victims.

According to the ILC Draft Code, a crime against humanity under ‘other inhumane acts’ can be that which “severely damage… human dignity.” An ICTY judge in the Kunarac Trial stated that ‘other inhumane acts’ can consist of a “serious attack on human dignity” without physical or mental harm if they “cause serious humiliation and degradation to the victim.” The Rome Statute of the ICC states that ‘other inhumane acts’ can consist of “intentionally causing great suffering.” Physical or mental injury is also not required in the ICC definition. 

The Martens Clause in both the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions states that the laws of armed conflict mustn’t be limited to the enumerated acts. Military personnel and civilians must be further protected based on the “laws of humanity and the requirements (1899) (or “dictates” in 1907) of the public conscience.” Both the Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute forbid “Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” in armed conflicts.

The lockdown-based pandemic response is an immense affront to human dignity. Being forced to stay home or remain 2 meters away from others, abstain from seeing family or friends, abstain from dating, live off government handouts, and cover our faces with masks is deeply degrading and humiliating for everyone. Lockdown despots have taken total control over our lives and even our minds by controlling what we see in the news and on social media. 

Quality of life and mental health have plummeted since the dawn of social distancing, and rates of suicidal ideation have multiplied. The constant fear-mongering in the media has people perpetually terrified of dying, not realizing that the mortality risk to them is very low. Nothing in history, including pandemics and wars, has caused as much suffering and identity destruction as has the isolation-and-panic COVID response of governments. 

Anyone speaking up against these unjustified measures or providing science-based information to the public is silenced and harshly defamed. The name-calling and public shaming of dissenters has been indispensable to the lockdown strategy and must be considered as part of the attack on human dignity. 

The COVID pandemic response is an assault on the public conscience rivaling that of any in history. The low level of recognition of this truth is due only to the all-encompassing propaganda campaign.

They severely damage physical or mental health.

This aspect is covered throughout the website. COVID restrictions have a major negative impact on physical and mental health, including destruction of personality and identity. Many peer-reviewed studies have found that the restrictions don’t even decrease coronavirus contagion, so there is no reason for them to exist at all.

‘Other Inhumane Acts’ Precedents

Courts have not had as many convictions under ‘other inhumane acts’ as some other types of crimes against humanity because it is not permissible to charge someone with OIA if they can be charged under another form of CAH for the same act. The cases that international criminal courts have seen usually involve many acts that can easily fit into one of the other categories, thus negating OIA charges. However, to see if lockdowns qualify as a crime against humanity under ‘other inhumane acts,’ it is useful to examine the case law history pertaining to that category.

The ICC has a comprehensive category for sexual assault. However, prior to its founding in 1998, non-rape sexual offences were often prosecuted under ‘other inhumane acts.’ The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals have a CAH category for rape but did not expressly include other forms of sexual assault, so they would prosecute the latter as OIA. In the case against Akayesu, for instance, the Rwandan tribunal found the defendant guilty of OIA due to non-rape sexual violence. 

The destruction of livelihood and means of sustenance has been found to be an ‘other inhumane act.’ In 2006, the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted Suddam Hussein, and two other defendants, of OIA for razing the city of Ad-Dujayl and destroying farms. The court concluded that these acts met the criteria for CAH because they willfully caused great suffering to the residents of Ad-Dujayl. Property destruction of great magnitude is explicitly listed as a war crime in the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 147), but not in crimes against humanity statutes. It has therefore usually been prosecuted as the CAH of persecution or OIA. 

Lockdowns Share Raison d’etre with Forcible Transfer

Deportation has been enumerated in crime against humanity statutes since the Nuremberg Charter. The Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals mention deportation, but not forcible transfer. The ICC and ICL statutes include “forcible transfer” along with deportation. However, according to Human Rights Watch, displacement of people within a country has always been included in the understanding of ‘deportation’ as a CAH; the ICC and ICL statutes were clarifying the existing definition.

Lockdowns are similar to forcible transfer of population in important ways. Both involve the uprooting of large numbers of civilian lives. Both push people to be where they don’t want to be. Both force people to live radically different lives and often make it impossible to maintain contact with the people in their lives. In international law, forcible transfer needn’t be by gunpoint. It often occurs through coercion, such as by shutting down workplaces and schools, forcing people to move to regain access to these necessities. 

To see if an action has violated a certain law, it is instructive to examine the underlying reasons for the law’s existence. Think about what is wrong with deporting thousands of people out of a country, or pressuring them to relocate within a country. How is that so bad that it is included in every international statute for crimes against humanity? 

Displacement can cause famine, for one. Every family needs an income to afford groceries or a plot of land on which to grow food. Remove people from their communities and job loss is inevitable. A similar effect has occured from lockdowns in low income countries. People are not allowed to work yet get no income assistance from the government. Many farms are not being worked anymore due to a shutdown in transportation infrastructure. As with forcible transfer, lockdowns cause major food insufficiencies. 130 million more people starving and 520 million pulled into extreme poverty, according to the UN.

Famine is far from the only raison d’etre for the forcible transfer CAH, however. Intentional starvation of a population would in fact be more accurately classified as extermination. Being forced to leave behind everything one knows and thrust into an unfamiliar life has got to be a harrowing and traumatic experience. Forcible transfer of population can separate people from their families, social networks, income sources, lifestyle, religious community, and health providers. 

Any of this look familiar? Lockdowns have near-identical effects as forcible population transfer. Although they don’t usually require people to move, they shatter every aspect of people’s lives and force them to adopt a totally unfamiliar existence. 

Many people have in fact relocated to avoid draconian COVID restrictions. For example, in the United States, there has been considerable internal migration from totalitarian social distancing states like California towards freer states like Florida, where it is possible to work, study, and have a life. In the developing world, closure of workplaces has forced many people to move in order to survive. For instance, the lockdown of India forced tens of millions of people to flee cities and make long treks back to their home villages where they can be looked after by relatives. 

These are relocations of necessity, not volition. In this case, the lockdowns legally constitute forcible transfer of population.

In situations in which people are not able to move to resume an acceptable quality of life, lockdowns may still meet the criteria for deportation/forcible transfer on the grounds that many people would have moved if they had the opportunity. For instance, many people would have emigrated from a lockdown down country if (a) international travel was not banned, and (b) other countries were not also locked down. 

Considering the similarities of impacts, even in lockdowns not involving actual mass relocation, it is apparent that the spirit of the deportation category aligns with the moral objectionability of lockdowns.

Like social distancing, the crime against humanity of persecution entails severely restricting basic human rights. Lockdowns are a form of social control that denies victims countless rights including those found in 12 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Another premise of the crime of persecution, is that of an intentional attack of a government against a group it does not like. Usually when a political office holder commits a veritable attack on his own people, it is to a specific group that he does dislikes, such as Saddam Hussein’s persecution of Kurds. However, 2020 has witnessed the birth of Covidism, a totalitarian cult that ignites leaders to attack their entire population in order to gain power and notoriety as a savior. Undoubtedly, the fathers of the crimes against humanity charters did not foresee such an abominable creation in the future.

Up to this point, we’ve been discussing how COVID-19 restrictions and public messaging are crimes against humanity in themselves. Now let’s turn to another issue: governments’ handling of people who are not following the restrictions. Governments around the world have been taking radical retaliation against these innocents, or at least contemplating doing so. 

To properly dissect the situation, it is vital to be upfront that Covidism is a cult. Yes, the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists, but it is no more dangerous than the flu and does not warrant the extreme measures that have been put in place to slow its spread. Everyone who supports social distancing and mask-wearing, either doesn’t have quality information on the subject, or, more commonly, has ceased to think rationally and joined this cult. Covidism is a totalitarian cult whose adherents have rejected human rights, reason, and science in favor of unconditional submission to the mainstream media narrative of perpetual hysteria and extreme domination of political rulers. 

Social distancing to prevent COVID-19 is irrational and unscientific. It is an act of a mentally weak indoctrinated cult-follower, not a sane human being. Recognizing this, the legal consequences for breaking COVID mitigation laws are in actuality punishments for resisting the Covidism cult. They have nothing to do with upholding public health. 

The most common legal punishment for defying a COVID mandate is a fine. Some governments, however, put people away for this offense. Germany, for example, rounds up non-Covidists into detention camps. Britain is considering a 10-year jail sentence for people who socialize. In many countries, it is common for the police to beat people just for being in public or being around others. Canadians even get their children stolen from them for not being Covidist. Vaccine passports are in the works all over the world. In Israel, you need one to do nearly anything, such as dine at a restaurant or work out at the gym. 

The way non-Covidists are treated in many countries is a crime against humanity. Their beating, fining, restriction on activities, imprisonment, and child-stealing constitutes the crime of persecution under international law. They are denied their fundamental rights to an even more extreme degree than the rest of the population in Covidist states.

What Next?

Social distancing laws and their disinformation-hysteria campaigns are a crime against humanity. They rival the scale and gravity of many deeds for which people have been convicted of CAH, war crimes, or genocide. Because of these ungodly acts, billions of people are now poorer, many of whom have sunken into extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of people (or more) have suffered serious mental injury from social isolation, financial worries, and a wildly inflated fear of a cold virus thanks to the reckless behavior of governments and the press. 

The actions of these institutions have been in bad faith. Government leaders and media moguls have used the coronavirus pandemic to elevate their status and usher in a totalitarian society. The lockdown-vaccine pandemic response is a deliberate attempt to acquire tremendous power for political office holders and generate revenue for news outlets and vaccine manufacturers. It is a Frankenstein set of public policies and social norms that must be stopped. Without prosecuting all of the people involved, including the journalists and scientists who carried out the propaganda blitz, this crime against humanity will repeat again and again. As Bill Gates said in a July 2020 interview, “We will have to prepare for the next one. That, you know I’d say, will get attention this time.” 

As with all crimes, crimes against humanity are best prosecuted at the national level. With awareness currently very low, domestic prosecution may have to wait until the public becomes more educated on the issue. Most people, including judges, only know the disinformation from the mainstream media and government, so education must precede prosecution. In the least, judges need to be well-informed about the COVID-lockdown issue for cases to receive due consideration. Lockdown Resistance is public domain; you may use whatever content on this site that you wish. A transition to an anti-lockdown government will probably be necessary before a public investigation takes place and charges are laid. 

The International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands, does not have universal jurisdiction. It has 123 member countries.  That leaves approximately 100 countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. Each country is expected to prosecute Rome Statute crimes domestically if possible. The ICC is designed to be an absolute last resort for prosecution. The Court relies upon national authorities to hand over those it indicts, so a change to an anti-lockdown regime is likely required to try the perpetrators of lockdown crimes against humanity in States Parties to the Rome Statute. Some countries, such as Canada, have formally adopted the Rome Statute in their criminal code, facilitating domestic prosecution of crimes against humanity.

Correction: The original version of this article erroneously reported that the International Criminal Court had 33 member countries.