Judgment on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights


Case No. 27/2017: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)


Dear Prosecutor, Public Defender, Ambassador and Members of the Jury of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee (IBEC) and the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR), regarding the Case 27-2017 against the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR), on June 26, 2017, it is hereby recorded that the Ethics Committee’s judgment has been concluded to analyze the violation of Buddhist Ethics and Human Rights on the part of the accused. This Case has been carried out as a result of the “Case Argentina”.

After analyzing the presentation of the Case and the validation of evidence, the Committee has proceeded with a unanimous vote of five members of the Jury, all of whom have sentenced the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) as “Responsible” for the serious crimes of VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF BUDDHIST PEOPLES AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES. The actions of the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) in ignoring the claims of justice by the Buddhist Temple World Association of Buddhism have done enormous damage to the dignity and respect of the Maitriyana Buddhist Community, but also damage the Rule of Human Rights, which must be developed and evolved in its fulfillment, instead of the current deterioration and inefficiency. These acts demonstrate that the members of the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) have violated the victims’ human right to justice, contributing to maintain the status quo of impunity existing in Argentina. Although for decades the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has had a good development in the protection of human rights, due to the lack of funding and the lack of sense of Purpose and Responsibility of its members, it has become an ineffective system of justice as the state justice to which it should regulate. Clearly, the climate of the populist regimes of Latin America, which has systematically and widespreadly violated the legal institutions, has contributed to this deterioration. Thus, the members of the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) have forgotten their supreme duty to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms of both individuals and the communities. In this sense, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights establishes that the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has been disrespectful of the sacredness of individual human rights and collective human rights owned by the Buddhist People as a tribal community. Therefore, the Maitriyana Community offers the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) an Ethical Judgment as a way of restorative juridical teaching, so that this inter-American body may return to an adequate behavior. If the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) would replace its bureaucrats and uses a system of restorative justice, this will surely ensure an adequate functioning at the international level. In order to achieve this, the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has much to learn from Buddhist Restorative Justice.

The perspective of Buddhist Law is the oldest approach to restorative justice in the world, serving the rights of victims rather than the aims of the State, which is why it is concluded that institutions of violent punishment or legal sanction with imprisonment should be abolished.[1] In fact, imprisonment as a way to harm the offenders is not really justice, but it is revenge, since it does not compensate for the damages suffered by the victims and their families. Thus, the Maitriyana seeks the reform and learning of criminals but never their suffering, stating that, in fact, prisons do not cure the problem of crime but rather they make it worse. For the spiritual master, prisons are clearly the opposite of a place of repentance and reformation,[2] which is rather quite similar to a psychological hell that aggravates the existential situation of the offender. Unlike this vengeful and dehumanizing sphere, the Buddhist Law promotes the field of contemplation (zen) as a genuine space that allows one to deal with guilt and the need for forgiveness and Truth, this being the socially constructive Purpose (Dharma) of the Law. From Maitriyana’s perspective, the state judicial system does not provide adequate or righteous justice, which is why a new system of values or a scheme of thought is necessary for the legal system,[3] by developing a model of peaceful and just social relations. In this sense, the Buddhist Law never seeks to punish evil or conflict but rather to restore good or harmony, demonstrating that criminal justice fails whenever there is no social justice. The individual who commits crimes is the very expression of injustice and inequity of society, which has failed to educate or produce righteous citizens, reason why there must be pedagogical mechanisms to correct this systemic failure. The Maitriyana promotes a social transformation that is the only source of genuine hope to evanesce crime without the need to use fear or weapons. The libertarian meditation seeks to reform the character of the delinquent through the alternative authority of the Awakening (Bodhi), the Law (Dharma) and the spiritual commune (Sangha). The Buddhist Law has an approach that seeks the Cure (Nirvana) of crime through the understanding and evanescence of its causes, thus assuming the deep connection between criminal justice and social justice.[4] The Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) teaches that when money income is equitably distributed then the level of crime and homicide is reduced to the minimum. This audacious and original idea of conceiving the origin of crime under economic conditions was not created by Karl Marx but by Siddhartha Gautama himself,[5] who taught that the problem of crime is originated when the State does not assume its role of distributive justice, because alienation and injustice are associated with violence, immorality and crime.[6] According to Maitriyana’s perspective, the issue of crime is interrelated with the social context in which it emerges, because when an apprentice enjoys political, economic, cultural and environmental welfare, his or her possibilities to commit crimes are reduced as much as possible. This means that it is useless and even self-contradictory any violent struggle against crime, since violence cannot be cured through violence. In this way, the Buddhist Law confirms that crime must be correctly confronted through non-violence, social justice, education and ecology, teaching that the ends are inseparable from the means. This teaching of compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna) is the Maitriyana’s great contribution to the world juridical system, positioning the spiritual commune (sangha) as an organ of international ethical control so that humankind can follow an adequate example of life through the purification of the free expression of thought, word and act.[7] However, the legal code (vinaya) followed by the spiritual commune (sangha) raises rules that are not absolute but are open to revision and correction, since the development of Spiritual Awakening (Bodhi) must adapt to different social circumstances. In short, Buddhist Law considers that the best method of social treatment against crime is education, teaching the criminal to understand and refrain from criminal acts.[8] Thus, while the state legal system is simply focused on punishing or blaming a human being,[9] instead, the Maitriyana legal system seeks the reform or learning of said individual. The Buddhist Law is not governed by the system of violent punishment but by a practice of rehabilitation and educational reform of the individual’s mental patterns that have caused him/her to incur crimes, in addition to seek repentance and reconciliation (maitri) with those to whom he or she has offended. This healing legal approach can also be analyzed as a producer of a reintegrative shame,[10] aiming to calm the minds of victims and aggressors through catharsis, atonement, restitution and reconciliation (maitri).[11] Said mechanism is oriented to true harmonization of the social fabric, promoting the ethical unity rather than moral coercion that represses conflict and animosity. In this way, the Maitriyana establishes that happiness is found in the degree of reconciliation (maitri) that relations have and not in the degree of material possessions or status. This spiritual wealth forms an essential part of the ethical standards of the legal code (vinaya) created by Gautama, who has influenced legal systems such as those of Tibet and Bhutan, in which each apprentice has a legal responsibility to protect the dignity of the others’ life.[12] In this sense, the ethical-legal system of Buddhist Law promotes an honest model of life based on the quest for Truth, Good and pluralism, conceiving the restorative justice as a new legal model for the world by focusing on the need for spiritual harmonization and not in penal punishment. However, the existence of Maitriyana’s ethics committees and conscience tribunals is an offense against the legal monopoly that the state’s bureaucratic institutions have in order to maintain social control. Against this, the spiritual master declares that legal bureaucracy is the antithesis of the community’s justice,[13]  regulating the social cohesion through fear and not through organic communal relationships based on love and mercy. The justice system of the Buddhist Law is developed with compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), while the State justice system is developed with the fear to punishment. This is the cause of the failure of contemporary civilization in its struggle against crime, because it lacks the necessary solidarity to provide true justice. In this way, there is an almost irresolvable gap between both paradigms of justice.[14]

The Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) understands that he or she is responsible for the welfare of all beings, reason why he/she dedicates his/her life to the Liberation of the international community. In this transnational framework, it is positioned the Maitriyana’s restorative justice, criticizing the United Nations system of world government for lacking ethical authority and compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna). The Buddhist Law has a compendium of legal procedures and mechanisms associated with the endeavors by the spiritual commune (Sangha) to repair abuses against human dignity, by ensuring justice and reconciliation (maitri).[15] Therefore, Maitriyana’s ethics committees and conscience tribunals ethically condemn international crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, ecocide and crimes against peace, satisfying the victims thirst for Truth. Even though the Buddhist Law does not resort to imprisonment, since this procedure is an incomplete form of justice,[16] certainly satisfies the need for recognition concerning the crimes occurred in society through simple and rapid mechanisms that attest the Truth of the facts. This is a tool for building peace and social justice, as it is a spiritual model of conflict resolution that lacks justice based on retaliation and revenge. Thus Maitriyana’s restorative justice is based on mercy and solidarity, seeking Truth and Reconciliation (Maitri), so that it can be applied both to local conflicts and to cases of massive abuses of human rights, such as has happened in Sri Lanka and Cambodia.[17] Like transitional justice, the Buddhist Law responds to impunity or injustice in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansings or genocides, implementing principles of restorative justice through the contemplation (Zen) of Truth. Only this orientation toward social justice is capable of achieving a model of society based on peace and justice, by dissipating the causes of conflict and perceiving enemies as friends.[18] In effect, the spiritual master recommends eliminating malevolence and animosity as the main causes of war, eliminating these evils not through violent force but through social assistance, such as building schools and hospitals for those with whom the conflict was established. According to Maitriyana this is the only way in which, after a war, those who have been defeated will have no resentment against the victorious or invading nation. Only through wise and compassionate acts the terrorism can be adequately combated,[19] educating or helping the supposed enemies to change their vision. This healing process, which is a key in the Buddhist Law, requires courage and willingness on the part of the international community, even though restorative justice is a principle established in the very Charter of the United Nations, where the ideal of dialogue and conciliation is prioritized instead of violence.[20] In short, for the Maitriyana, war is an obsolete method for resolving disputes,[21] but even if this mechanism is used, precautions should be taken to maintain a just peace, respecting the human rights of those who have been defeated.[22]

The restorative justice of Buddhist Law is a path of life that allows the transformation of mind of the individual,[23] repairing the damage caused by the crime through a consensual resolution. But it is also sought the transformation of unjust structures of society that influence such criminal behaviors, producing then the emergence of non-violent societies.[24] These ethical values of restorative justice are not only employed by the Maitriyana movement, but have also been practiced by tribal or aboriginal communities for thousands of years.[25] In fact, the spiritual commune (sangha) created by Gautama is heiress of this social tradition of healing justice. While the state legal system is developed through governmental institutions, the Buddhist Law is developed through spiritual values. In this way, Maitriyana’s restorative or healing justice responds to harm with compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), considering that problems are always opportunities to teach those who have forgotten how to act righteously.[26] This means that the Buddhist Law not only helps the victim, but also helps the aggressors to return to their original spiritual nature. In understanding the aggressors in the context of their relationships, the restorative justice of Maitriyana does not resort to punishment but has as its Purpose (Dharma) the healing of both the victims and the aggressors.[27]

The Buddhist Law emphasizes justice as a quest for non-violence, solidarity, love and friendship, because it conceives the existence as an interrelated reality. This supreme form of restorative justice that characterizes Maitriyana deals with crime and conflict through mediation and reconciliation (maitri), teaching the society to prevent, participate, take responsibility, repair, reintegrate and transform, by eliminating the causes of suffering. Obviously, the Buddhist Law is a paradigm of justice that is alternative to that of the state legal system, trying to restore as much as possible the relationships affected by a crime or conflict. However, Maitriyana’s restorative justice is not really a new concept, but it has traditionally been practiced in tribal communities throughout the world for thousands of years,[28] where criminals should try to restore the psychological and spiritual well-being of the victims. These past practices include mediation, restorative conference,[29] restorative circles, and also the current commissions of Truth, promoting restitution, apologies, and behavioral changes,[30] which is a work based on a vision of society as interconnected.[31] The Buddhist Law develops the libertarian meditation, ethics and compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna), which is why it eradicates the causes of suffering that are attachment, aversion and unconsciousness, teaching the apprentice to live with generosity, love and clear vision. These values are the only basis on which it is possible to create a pacifist politics, a just economy, a wise culture and a healthy environment.

Unlike state justice, which defines crime as a simple violation of laws and that considers the State as the victim, instead, the restorative justice of the Maitriyana considers crime as damage to the social relations of the individual who is the true victim. Therefore, while in state justice the State and the criminal are the parties involved in the process; in Buddhist Law the victim and the aggressor are the main actors. This juridical paradigm shift implies stop ignoring the needs and rights of the victim, who is central in the justice process.[32] But since the Maitriyana’s restorative justice appreciates the interpersonal dimension, obviously the rights and needs of the aggressor are also respected. In this way, there is an evolution from a technical and institutional interpretation in order to arrive at a political, economic and cultural interpretation of justice. Buddhist Law is then comparable with the ethical and philosophical values of social action,[33] giving importance to social relations, having a spirit of service, respecting the inherent dignity of the human being, behaving with integrity, developing a specialized knowledge in helping others and challenging poverty and social injustice.

The Maitriyana is the heir of two thousand six hundred years of struggle for social justice, so it has a leading role in providing ethical guidance to the international community, offering a way that is capable of eradicating both poverty and crime. This requires an egalitarian procedure which has been defined by Siddhartha Gautama as Detachment, while John Rawls has called it as the veil of ignorance.[34] The Buddhist Law is an innovative way to solve social problems by following the highest ethical ideals, building a peaceful, fair, cultured and healthy world. These principles that characterize the restorative justice of Maitriyana are the compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna) as well as liberty, equality and fraternity. Thus, the Buddhist Law promotes the transformation and reconstruction of civilization under the premise of peace, justice, knowledge and ecology. This ethical orientation toward social action embodies the spiritual quest of the Cure (Nirvana) of the suffering of all beings with courage and equanimity, so that combating crime adequately is an axis of the restorative justice of Maitriyana. In effect, the Buddhist Law is a global movement that affirms that the justice’s punitive approach does not work, because punishing those who violate laws with imprisonment does not mean teaching or rehabilitating them, nor does it mean restoring the damage done to the victims. The state retributive justice focuses on violently punishing criminals, while restorative or reconciling justice focuses on helping the victims and curing the causes of crime.[35] Only the restorative justice that characterizes the Maitriyana can reconcile the victims with the offenders, transforming both through the power of love.

In accordance with Foucault, the Buddhist Law states that it is necessary a radical reexamination of the meaning, motive, means and the receiver of punishment,[36] because learning to forgive is to use the great potential of adversities to do good both to oneself and to others.[37] Precisely, the restorative justice of the Maitriyana carries out this overcoming of state criminal justice, developing a millennial system based on the assumption of responsibilities on the part of the criminal and also in satisfying the victim’s needs of reparation. While the Buddhist Law recognizes the inherent liberty of human being, at the same time it recognizes that society has negatively influenced the criminal through a political, economic, cultural and environmental context, so that said criminal must be provided with the possibility of accessing to a new context of rehabilitation, healing, transformation and reconciliation (maitri). Obviously, the Maitriyana’s restorative justice is part of the emergence of a new juridical paradigm in the contemporary world, although it is also heir of a thousand-year-old evolved legal tradition, since this system has been used by spiritual communities (sanghas) and Tribal peoples from Africa and Asia.[38] In these tribal legal systems crime was not seen as an attack against the State but rather as a violation against Inter-existence or social interrelation.[39]

The Buddhist Law is characterized by a communitarian ethical attitude, incorporating respect, solidarity and the assumption of responsibility within a juridical framework.[40] This implies a warm and loving attitude toward victims, seeking the reconciliation and healing of their emotional wounds instead of seeking mere financial compensation.[41] In this way, the procedures of ordinary civil justice are not able to offer this need for genuine emotional connection that the victim wishes in order to be able to feel mercy and forgive the aggression of the offender.[42] At the same time, ordinary criminal justice, by confining the aggressor in prison, annuls the right of repentance held by the delinquent, placing him/her in an environment where violence is the way to solve problems, so that it is also nullified his/her right to transformation, only teaching him/her to return to the criminal life.[43] On the other hand, in the restorative justice of Maitriyana the apprentice is encouraged to take responsibility for his/her actions and consequences, encouraging him/her to do things well and to try to repair the damage done. The view of Buddhist Law considers ethical judgment not as a violent punishment but as an opportunity for the transformation of the life of the criminal and the victim’s. This alternative method of conflict resolution – such as peace circles and group conferences – allows the individual to be able to reintegrate and feel that he or she is a member of society through the right action,[44] which is a method that reaffirms that what happened was wrong and should be avoided to be repeated. Maitriyana’s ethics committees and conscience tribunals seek to heal communitarian relations that have been damaged by crime, restoring both victims and aggressors through dialectical procedures that promote justice and peace. In accordance with Van Ness, the Buddhist Law proposes three steps of restorative justice: the encounter (emotional narrative and agreement of understanding), the amendment (apologies, behavioral change and generous restitution) and the reintegration (respect, material assistance and spiritual direction).[45] In short, Maitriyana’s juridical practice reveals fundamental ethical values that regard crime as an opportunity to prevent evil, doing the good and transform the mind into a path of love and solidarity.[46] Indeed, the Buddhist Law allows the victims to restore the Truth, incorporating the reality of crime to their identity, which is the evanescence of revenge and impunity. The restorative justice of Maitriyana differs from utilitarian justice and Kantian justice, since its Purpose (Dharma) is not the pursuit of utility neither retribution, but rather a sense of transformation and self-liberation through Truth. However, for the Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva), as well as for Foucault, justice implies a mode of resistance facing the subjectivation modes imposed by the dominant Power, which is evident in the way how in prison the human being is pigeonholed as if the crime committed were about his/her true identity. The Buddhist Law encourages the criminal to become an apprentice and seek his/her true sense or Purpose (Dharma), teaching him/her the possibility of re-creating himself in the context of transformative practices.[47] This new legal discourse proposed by Maitriyana is the Analytical-Existential-Libertarian Discourse (Buddha-Dharma-Sangha), teaching the society to pay full attention (Mindfulness) to the emergence or vital necessity of a new legal practice where cooperation and dialogue are privileged rather than domination and rhetoric.[48] The Buddhist Law seeks to completely transform and displace the current legal system. Therefore, this juridical revolution of Maitriyana is rather about a dynamic evolution, opening the way to new conditions of possibility of Law.[49] Even from the perspective of the spiritual master, restorative justice will eventually show its own weaknesses, allowing the future society to make a new evolution, since nothing is permanent.[50]

The Buddhist Law establishes that the state legal system is not only imperfect but also defective; frequently making the victims feel that they are ignored by prosecutors and judges. The Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) does not consider that the current legal system is fair and effective at the time of combating crime, reason why the restorative justice of Maitriyana proposes the emergence of a new paradigm of justice. This paradigm embodied by the Buddhist Law promotes a meeting space for reparation and reconciliation (maitri) between victims and aggressors, providing the opportunity to heal individual and communitarian wounds, which is the best method of preventing recidivism of crime. Indeed, the Maitriyana provides a new scheme that redefines punitive and dissuasive punishment, teaching how to rehabilitate and transform the social response to crime. Thus, the Buddhist Law criticizes the deficiencies of criminal justice for providing an insignificant role to the vision of the victims of crime,[51] at the same time it is denounced as a structurally inefficient and ineffective legal system that is incapable of being just and equitable.[52] The Maitriyana’s restorative justice allows prioritizing the victim’s interests within the practices of legal system, while proposing a new mode of response and prevention in the face of crime, since imprisonment is exactly the opposite of the search for self-control and rehabilitation of the criminal: his/her dehumanization through the virtue of violence to resolve conflicts. Certainly the spiritual master teaches the criminal to be in charge of his/her life legitimately and peacefully facing frustration (dukkha), teaching him/her to regain a sense of respect both for himself and for the others.[53] The Buddhist Law states that prisons should be educational institutions that prepare criminals to carry out a righteous life. But given the high level of recidivism in crime, the current penal legal system reveals that prisons are really a place to worsen the subject’s psychic situation. Although the legal system should satisfy the appearance of justice,[54] as a basis for its legitimacy, only a small percentage of the population perceives the penal system as very just,[55] reason why the Maitriyana seeks the implementation of restorative justice as promotion of reparation, reconciliation and tranquility between the victim, the aggressor and the community.[56] Therefore, the procedures of Buddhist Law are not controlled by soulless professionals, but by the same affected community,[57] even by allowing the accused ones to participate actively in the proceedings and to experience the consequences of their actions in order to try to repair them but without endangering the emotional integrity of the victims. The Purpose (Dharma) of Maitriyana’s restorative justice is the just restoration of the victims, delinquents and communities,[58] reason by which these programs produce very low recidivism in crime. The criminal legal system is not only ineffective for not incorporating the voice of the victims, but also for producing an enormous amount of bureaucratic steps that require a great monetary cost for society. At the same time that Buddhist Law reduces crime with great efficiency, it is an alternative paradigm of low cost, not only because it reduces enormously the amount of procedures and times of the judicial courts, but also because it offers a mechanism of punishment that is different from that of imprisonment, since the latter is just one of many forms of punishment. Indeed, the Free and Enlightened Being (Arhat-Bodhisattva) confirms that the harm and limitation of the criminal’s freedom is neither the only way in which justice can be done nor the only way in which society can disapprove criminal conduct.[59] Thus, the Maitriyana reveals that the psychological rehabilitation of the criminal along with the compensation of the victim is a form of constructive punishment very different from the penitentiary criminal paradigm. Therefore, the Buddhist Law is actually an alternative to criminal punishment but also an alternative form of ethical punishment that spiritually condemns individual, corporate or governmental conduct. In fact, ethical or non-violent punishment is an indispensable aspect of the restorative justice of Maitriyana,[60] stating that the incarceration paradigm is a stereotyped form of punishment. Instead, peacefully confronting the criminal in order that he or she apologizes and attempts to mend the harm done proves to be the healthiest and most adequate form of punishment. By not associating punishment with imprisonment the Buddhist Law can pass through the ethics of the Middle Way without resorting to the extremes of violence and condescension, working in the construction of a sort of punishment that amends the suffering of the victims.[61] In short, the Maitriyana considers that punishment for criminals should be used not because they deserve it, but rather to increase social welfare. In this way, the spiritual master teaches to perceive that a criminal is not a bad person, but is rather someone who has committed a bad act,[62] demonstrating simultaneously that there are no Free and Enlightened Beings (Arhats-Bodhisattvas) but rather there are free and enlightened acts. This insubstantializing attitude considers that the human being is what he or she does, so if he or she stops doing evil and begins to do good, then he or she can purify his/her mind and reach the transformation and Awakening (Bodhi) to Truth. Just like raising a child, this attitude of the Buddhist Law allows disciplining in a way that demonstrates disapproval of bad behavior and simultaneously demonstrates its solidarity and respect.[63] In this sense, Maitriyana’s ethics committees and conscience tribunals encourage the criminal to take responsibility for his/her actions and to apologize publicly, starting the first step towards the slow and arduous rehabilitation. This implies that Buddhist Law regards its procedures as therapeutic courts where the human being can abandon the repetition (karma) of his/her criminal acts and begin to identify with the vision of others, especially with the feelings of victims. In the Maitriyana the goal of restorative justice is then the Cure (Nirvana) of the psychic illness of the criminal and also is the Reconciliation (Maitri) with his/her victim, who needs healing from his/her wounds through love. The punitive condemnation is not the dominant aim of the Law, but it is the reform and rehabilitation of criminals.[64] Therefore, the Buddhist Law is a legal system with integrity and compassionate wisdom (karuna-prajna).

In conclusion, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights has the Purpose (Dharma) to guide the peoples of the world through righteousness and the Supreme Law, which implies a direct criticism of those ineffective Courts that are violating their own duty of Justice. Therefore, it is established that the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) is violating the rights of the Buddhist Peoples and the Spiritual Communities, especially violating their individual and collective tribal rights. Undoubtedly, the international courts should be regulating the States so that the local tribunals do not violate the fundamental rights, providing a model of fast and effective restorative justice. Without a Humanitarian Purpose, the international Courts become bureaucrats and insensitive to the suffering of the victims, contributing to the perversion of justice instead of contributing to its Cure. Only by practicing the Path of Restorative Justice, as prescribed by Master Gautama and many contemporary jurists, the international courts will be able to function effectively and respect fundamental rights, understanding at all times that injustice is one of the principal ills of the world. In this way, the Case on the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) is a great teaching for national and international courts, perfectly proving that if the Courts do not allow simple, fast and effective resources for citizenship to have justice, then Courts are unjust and contrary to solidarity and Truth. The Courts have a duty to be faithful to the supreme human rights to peace and justice, because if they function in a bureaucratic way they become oppressive instruments and are contrary to the intrinsic dignity of the human being.

It is also put on record the fact that during the last two years, the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has done absolutely nothing to resolve the framework of impunity in Argentina, where millions of people haven’t had adequate access to justice, so that a framework of systemic corruption that oppresses society prevails. Within these millions of victims who have been deprived of accessing to justice it can be found not only the International Temple World Association of Buddhism but also the prosecutor Nisman, who was not only murdered with total impunity but, in addition, the Argentine government participated actively in covering-up of said homicide. Faced with this very serious situation, the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) never sought to sanction the Argentine State.

Following the Path of Master Gautama, who developed a communal and international legal framework, the Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights oversees that national and international courts are righteous, fair and ethical, never betraying the fundamental rights, so that the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (IACHR) has therefore been sentenced as “Responsible” for the VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF BUDDHIST PEOPLES AND SPIRITUAL COMMUNITIES.


With a spirit of reconciliation (maitri),

Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha

President and Spiritual Judge of the International Buddhist Ethics Committe (IBEC) & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights (BTHR)




[1] Deirdre Golash, Punishment: An Institution in Search of a Moral Grounding.

[2] David R. Loy, How to Reform a Serial Killer: The Buddhist Approach to Restorative Justice.

[3] Martin Wright, Justice for Victims and Offenders.

[4] Cakkavatti-Sīhanāda Sutta.

[5] Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism.

[6] Kutadanta Sutta.

[7] Nandasena Ratnapala, Crime and Punishment in the Buddhist Tradition.

[8] Nandasena Ratnapala, Crime and Punishment in the Buddhist Tradition.

[9] Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice.

[10] John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration,

[11] Rebecca Redwood French, The Golden Yoke: The Legal Cosmology of Buddhist Tibet.

[12] Rebecca Redwood French, The Golden Yoke: The Legal Cosmology of Buddhist Tibet.

[13] J. Peter Cordella, Reconciliation and the Mutualist Model of Community.

[14] David R. Loy, How to Reform a Serial Killer: The Buddhist Approach to Restorative Justice.

[15] United Nations’ Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post Conflict Societies, S/2004/616, 23 August 2004.

[16] Rev. John M. Scorsine, Buddhist Perspectives on Transnational Restorative Justice.

[17] P. Manning, Governing memory: Justice, reconciliation and outreach at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

[18] Arya-satyaka-parivarta.

[19] Rev. John M. Scorsine, Buddhist Perspectives on Transnational Restorative Justice.

[20] Artículo 33. Carta de Naciones Unidas.

[21] T. Gyatso, The pocket Dalai Lama.

[22] John M. Scorsine Reconciliation and Postbellum Restoration: The Buddhist Perspective.

[23] Daniel W Van Ness, Restorative Justice as World View.

[24] D.G. Gil, Toward a ‘radical’ paradigm of restorative Justice.

[25] Daniel W Van Ness, Restorative Justice as World View.

[26] Jarem Sawatsky, The Ethic of Traditional Communities and the Spirit of Healing Justice: Studies from Hollow Water, the Iona Community, and Plum Village.

[27] Jarem Sawatsky, The Ethic of Traditional Communities and the Spirit of Healing Justice: Studies from Hollow Water, the Iona Community, and Plum Village.

[28] Carina Pichler, Peace through Peaceful Means: A Buddhist Perspective on Restorative Justice.

[29] Ted Wachtel, Defining Restorative Justice.

[30] Daniel Van Ness, The Shape of Things to Come: A Framework to think about a Restorative Justice System.

[31] Howard Zehr, The little Book of Restorative Justice.

[32] H.A. Zehr, Changing Lenses.

[33] E. H. Judah & M. Bryant, Criminal Justice: Retribution vs. Restoration.

[34] J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice.

[35] James Blumenthal, Toward A Buddhist Theory of Justice.

[36] Michel Foucault, Interview with Actes, in Power 394, 398-99 (The New Press 2000).

[37] John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation 3 (Oxford University Press 2002).

[38] Michael L. Hadley, The Spiritual Roots of Restorative Justice.

[39] Howard Zehr, The Little Book of Restorative Justice.

[40] Frank D. Hill, Restorative Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.

[41] H. Strang & L. W. Sherman, Repairing the Harm: Victims and Restorative Justice.

[42] Frank D. Hill, Restorative Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.

[43] P. A. Langan & D. J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released.

[44] Martin Wright and Guy Masters, Justified Criticism, Misunderstanding, or Important Steps on the Road to Acceptance?

[45] Daniel Van Ness, The Shape of Things to Come: a Framework for Thinking about a Restorative Justice System.

[46] J. Braithwaite, Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation.

[47] Frank D. Hill, Restorative Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.

[48] Frank D. Hill, Restorative Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.

[49] Frank D. Hill, Restorative Justice: Sketching a New Legal Discourse.

[50] M. Foucault, The Subject and Power.

[51] G. P. Fletcher, With Justice for some: victims’ rights in criminal trials.

[52] Z. D. Gabbay, Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.

[53] H. Zehr, Changing Lenses: a new focus for crime and Justice.

[54] Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954).

[55] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online (2003).

[56] H. Zehr, Changing Lenses: a new focus for crime and Justice.

[57] Barb Toews Shenk & Howard Zehr, Ways of Knowing for a Restorative Worldview.

[58] John Braithwaite, A Future Where Punishment Is Marginalized: Realistic or Utopian?

[59] A. Von Hirsch, Censure and Sanctions.

[60] Zvi D. Gabbay, Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.

[61] Jean Hampton, Correcting Harms Versus Righting Wrongs: The Goal of Retribution.

[62] Zvi D. Gabbay, Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.

[63] Zvi D. Gabbay, Justifying Restorative Justice: A Theoretical Justification for the Use of Restorative Justice Practices.

[64] Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 248 (1949).



One thought on “Judgment on Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s