Start a Truth Commission Immediately Regarding the Maui Fires

(L) Tracy the Brush Junkie, (C) Elias Davidsson, (R) Brother Warner of Lahaina

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB (using research by the late Elias Davidsson)

In April 2023, I published a book entitled “Elias Davidsson.” I tried to present many of the works Elias had written in English, especially ones where his position was unique. In 2006, he had tried to establish that we all have “a human right to truth.” In that 2006 article he first argued that democracy implies accountability and that “the transparency of official conduct is an essential feature.” Then he made five other points:

1. Although international human rights instruments do not explicitly refer to the right to the truth, it has been referred to by human rights courts and in documents adopted by various bodies of the United Nations. This right is also implicit in some human rights treaties. In 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted an Updated Set of principles to combat impunity. (United States is not a signatory.) In the Second Principle of that Treaty we read:

“Every people has the inalienable right to know the truth about past events concerning the perpetration of heinous crimes and the circumstances and reasons that led, through massive or systematic violations, to the perpetration of them.”

And the fifth Principle says that states must give effect to that principal. This can involve Truth Commissions.

“Societies that have experienced heinous crimes perpetrated on a massive or systematic basis may benefit in particular from the creation of a truth commission … to prevent the disappearance of evidence. Regardless of whether a State establishes such a body, it must ensure the preservation of, and access to, archives concerning violations of human rights and humanitarian law.”

2. The Right to the Truth as a Form of Individual Reparation. According to Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the (ICCPR (to which the US is a signatory), victims of human rights violations are entitled to an ‘effective remedy’ including the right to learn the truth on these violations. In 1989 the UN adopted Principles on the … Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and in 1991 a Manual on the implementation of these principles. According to paragraph 9 of the UN Principles: “the broad purpose is ‘to discover the truth about the events leading to the suspicious death of a victim’.”

3. The Inter-American Court for the Protection of Human Rights (IACHR) has through its jurisprudence [that is, case rulings] said:

“The right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.”

 In 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has for first time recognized that the right to the truth belongs to members of society at large as well as to the families of victims of human rights violations. (The US is not a signatory.)

4. Before the adoption of the Basic Principles (2005), the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), in its General Comment no. 31, pointed out that states are under the duty to protect individuals subject to their jurisdiction not just against violations of the [ICCPR] by [their] agents, but also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of Covenant rights….

5. The ‘Minnesota Protocol’ lists desirable procedures of an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a suspicious death. These include specific tasks to be accomplished at the crime scene, processing of evidence, avenues of investigation and identification and interviews of witnesses. The ‘Minnesota Protocol’ also provides a guideline for the establishment of independent commissions of inquiry and the performance of autopsies.

Further Notes by Elias Davidsson

States sometimes attempt to avoid investigations which may embarrass or implicate high officials. In order to cover up official complicity, states sometimes stage an investigation designed to fail. The IACtHR explicitly warned:

“The State has the duty to commence ex officio and without delay, a serious, fair, and effective investigation which is not undertaken as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless.”

… The European Court of Human Rights addressed five criteria that permit the evaluation of the effectiveness of an investigation, namely: promptness, thoroughness, impartiality, independence and transparency. [It] expressed its view in one case that ‘the astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities …can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events’.

Human Rights Watch observes:

“In a ruling on July 26, 2007 the European Court of Human Rights found the Russian government responsible for 11 killings that took place in Aldi, a suburb of Grozny, in February 2000. HRW.org documented as a massacre in Chechnya that Russian riot police and contract soldiers carried out in the midst of a sweep operation several days after Russian forces had taken control over the area.

“The court’s unanimous ruling held Russia accountable for the 11 deaths, inhuman and degrading treatment of one of the applicants, failing to conduct an effective investigation, and failing to provide an effective domestic remedy for the abuses. It ordered the Russian government to pay the applicants more than US $225,000 in material and moral damages.”

“Failure To Connect the Dots”

Paragraph 9 of the UN Principles is helpful:

“There shall be thorough, prompt and impartial investigation…. It shall include an adequate autopsy, analysis of all physical and documentary evidence and statements from witnesses… In the case-law of the ECHR we find that that the lack of thoroughness (or effectiveness) was inferred from omissions by the state, such as failure by the investigating authorities to take reasonable steps to secure evidence; ignorance of obvious evidence (failure to ‘connect the dots’); failure to collect all the evidence that could have clarified the sequence of events; failure to report troubling facts; failure to interrogate certain people or to ask certain questions in interrogations; failure to ascertain possible eye-witnesses … [or] to clarify important inconsistencies; [or] to consider alter- native hypotheses for unnatural death;… failure to preserve evidence at the scene (of the crime) and taking all relevant measurements; failure to inquire about motives.”

… Paragraph 16 of the UN Principles specifies the rights of the family to participate:

“Families of the deceased and their legal representatives shall be informed of, and have access to, any hearing as well as to all information relevant to the investigation, and shall be entitled to present other evidence.”

— Note: Elias Davidsson, in 2006, thanked Pétur Knútsson and Þorbjörn Broddason of the University of Iceland, for their valuable observations and suggestions.

Comment by Mary W Maxwell — the Need for Haste

It often seemed to me that Elias Davidsson was too idealistic, too “up in the clouds” when it came to International Law.  Might, not rights, wins most often, internationally. (That is the theme of my 1990 book, Morality among Nations.) Nevertheless, as you see in the above compilation, Elias did locate many articulations of his belief, in official documents.

I am writing this today with specific reference to the fires in Maui, Hawaii, that began on August 8, 2023. Already a month has passed without anyone starting the kind of inquiry described above. I think we should assume that the government is not going to “do the right thing.’

(If they do, we can be happy and apologize later — no problem.)

What is called for now is a Truth Commission.  The word “commission” is often used when a government “commissions” particular people to investigate. But we as laypersons can call ourselves a Truth Commission.  Or a Truth Committee. Or a Truth ______ (whatever word suits you).

Without doubt there will be snakes in the grass — persons who appear genuine at first but later sell out the group.  So I recommend there be many Truth Committees, perhaps for each voting ward, or by church parish.  I know almost nothing of Hawaii, having only stopped in Oahu a few times, on my way from Australia to US. It’s not right for me to say any more.  Clearly people on the ground are well motivated.

I point again to three videos that show serious intent to deal with the possibility of crimes having been committed by government: Here is a video about a local man, Brother Warner, who says “Lahaina will not be broken”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq-k09xBhgw&t=11s

And here is video by Brush Junkie (I think she grew up there but is now mainland):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZcUukugjrM

This one was made by Cygnus, a man who was prevented from looking behind “the new wall”:

https://rumble.com/v3d0m68-mysterious-black-curtain-and-special-police-spotted-around-mauis-ground-zer.html

I also wrote an article urging someone to sue for an injunction against coverup: https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=228828

My own experience with courts is very discouraging, but who knows, you may get a judge whose parents perished in the fire.

Please understand the way time acts against us.  Even if you have no idea how to form a committee, you can call your Aunt Tilly, maybe she knows.  You can contact me at my website ConstitutionAndTruth.com. “Brush Junkie” above would also be glad to hear from you.

Come on, Elias Davidsson did all he could to explain what is needed. Lend him your ear.

God help us all.

— Mary Maxwell lives at 175 Loudon Rd, Apt 6, Concord NH 03301, USA