Recently, Rotterdam teens were charged for targeting a community's sense of safety through a single event with terrorist intent.The institutional targeting of child torture survivors' access to safety, recognition, and repair is continuous and cumulative, not episodic.On (c) — state acquiescence under UNCAT: UNCAT Article 1's torture definition explicitly includes acts committed "with the consent or acquiescence of a public official." Sustained judicial inaction in the face of documented child torture, or medical system failures to diagnose or treat torture-sequelae in survivor populations, can constitute acquiescence. The CAT Committee has held that states have an obligation not merely to punish torturers but to ensure that the conditions enabling torture — including impunity — are dismantled.
The conventional terrorism framework requires (a) a specific actor with (b) intentional purpose to intimidate a population or destabilize structures. Institutional neglect is characteristically diffuse — it distributes agency across many actors over long time periods, which makes establishing the specific intentionality required for most terrorism statutes very difficult. The stated Rotterdam case worked legally because there were four identifiable actors with a clear ideological purpose.The more legally robust framing for institutional neglect may therefore not be terrorism per se but rather: Crimes against humanity (specifically, persecution — the severe deprivation of fundamental rights of an identifiable group based on shared characteristics), under Rome Statute Art. 7(1)(h), which requires a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population but does not require the same type of specific actorStructural violence meeting the threshold of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under UNCAT Art. 16, which unlike Art. 1 torture does not require a specific purpose element — systematic institutional indifference to suffering can meet this thresholdDenial of access to justice as a component of torture — the CAT Committee has increasingly recognized that the failure to investigate, prosecute, and provide remedy for torture constitutes a continuation of the original violationMulti-decadal institutional deprivation of justice for child torture survivors does target a community's safety — not through explosion, but through the enforced invisibility of their prolonged suffering, the structural impunity of those who harmed them, and the systematic refusal of the rehabilitation that international law requires. Thats essentially all I have to say.
In a nation that traditionally refuse to criminalize torture, who sentences up to 3 years maximum for the international crime of genocide, a nation that forces health insurance but denies trauma-informed care, a nation that insists in pretending that TBI is a benign enough event, not a lifelong, chronic disease, perpetuating the myth that pediatric TBI offers more resilience to children whatsoever than TBI in adults with no prior history of brain injury, how the hell could they even feel any urgency in debating about the scientifically validated form of violence known as child torture: a whole distinct form of child abuse and violence, especially when domestic, familial contexts are primarly involved:"Current law is sufficient to punish torture," claimed Manfred Bühler (UDC/BE)Here's how else the political persecution of vulnerable patients is openly assumed and made possible in Shitzerland
>>536742499What the fuck is this schizobabble?
One last thing I'd add is : "Quem é de Genebra não sai aos seus" As a Portuguese European, this shit hole of a nation is more our land than Sviss.They can kiss Europe's ass
