Whistleblowers, official channels - and the judiciary

Accounts by whistleblowers who claim to meticulously follow internal policies, and then external reporting channels, suggest that they experience more of the same apparently time-consuming sham investigations, corruption, obfuscation, delays, obstructions, defamations, dehumanisation & lack of respect for due process right up to the apex of the judiciary.

How many whistleblowers, across jurisdictions, discover that dysfunctions occur at various levels in official channels, including regulators and law enforcement, especially when their disclosures implicate state players, state bodies, multinationals, NGOs and wealthy well-connected individuals - including those connected to big brands?

In Geneva, under the nose the UN and other promoters of human rights and justice, accounts suggest that whistleblowers don't fare well in the Geneva judiciary. This could be an advantage for those who have something to hide & want those reporting them to be 'officially' blacklisted & discredited.

If players /organisations are 'influential' then there may even be cross-jurisdictional impacts, including access to consular assistance.

In Geneva, the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature supervises the permanent magistrates, assessors and deputy judges of the Judiciary. Its job is to ensure the proper functioning of the jurisdictions and that judges fulfil their duties with dignity, rigor, diligence and humanity.

The Geneva Cour d'appel du Pouvoir judiciaire is responsible for determining, as the cantonal authority of the last instance, appeals against internal decisions to the Judiciary.

So there are several layers - which should ensure the correct functioning of the judiciary.

One whistleblower has repeatedly raised her concerns about the Geneva judiciary & certain of its members, especially Geneva Public Prosecutor, Olivier Jornot, with at least the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature and the the Cour d'appel du Pouvoir judiciare and claims that 'the rules' keep changing.

The Swiss Deputy Prosecutor, Ruedi Montanari, had referred her complaints about Jornot (who has been involved in the case and has apparently at least denied access to data relating to proceedings against her adversary), back to the Geneva Ministère public in June 2023. It is not clear if these complaints have been assigned to the 'extraordinary' prosecutor, Pierre Aubert - or if they are being addressed at all. She claims that her judicial harassment in Geneva continues to escalate.

The president of the Geneva Cour d'appel du Pouvoir judiciaire, Matteo Pedrazzini, returned (by post) a 15th January 2024 complaint by the whistleblower, with a short note dated 1st February 2024. The complaint from the whistleblower also referred to new evidence of financial anomalies, which have also been reported to Olivier Jornot's Ministère public. Matteo Pedrazzini incorrectly cited the date of the whistleblower's evidence as 22nd January 2014, which didn't inspire much confidence.

He also apparently contradicted his acknowledgment of the whistleblower's registered letter of 24 October 2023, appealing two decisions by the Cour de Justice – which had apparently not been assessed by the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature .

Pedrazzini gave the whistleblower a deadline, including to present the decisions of the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature.

On November 20th the whistleblower wrote to him, in French and by registered post, explaining that it was not even clear that Christian Coquoz, president of the Cour de Justice (and president of the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature) had escalated complaints to the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, as he hadn't replied.

She wrote, "Unfortunately, I am still waiting for the response from Conseil supérieur de la magistrature regarding two complaints I have raised about Mme Daniel Chiabudini. M Coquoz has apparently still not escalated my concerns about his response to my first complaint to the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature ...."

She went on to write to Pedrazzini,?"I am respectfully requesting an extension of your deadline until I receive the responses of the the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature as it is not possible to meet your deadline. I would be most grateful if you could ask the the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature to respond.”

On November 29th?2023 Pedrazzini wrote to the whistleblower, confirming acknowledgement of this letter and providing the whistleblower with a copy of his letter to Coquoz. Pedrazzini apparently attached copies of the whistleblower’s ?letters of October 24th?and November 20th. Pedrazzini advised Coquoz that this case is ‘gardée à juger’ or ‘left to be judged’.

On January 12th?2024, the whistleblower received a letter, in a handwritten envelope with a ‘CHANCELLERIE D’ETAT’ label, containing a decision signed by Pedrazzini on December 21st?2023. Pedrazzini had apparently declared her complaints about the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature inadmissible?before she had even received responses from them to substantively evidenced complaints about systemic alleged judicial and legal corruption in the Geneva judiciary. The whistleblower had expected the?Conseil supérieur de la magistrature to address the concerns raised, including about blacklisting (legal), untold legal corruption and an alleged lack of respect for form, content and impartiality by the Geneva judiciary. That failing, she had expected the Cour d'appel du Pouvoir judiciaire to address them

Instead and for some reason, Pedrazzini did not require Coquoz to investigate and respond to the whistleblower and did not investigate why Coquoz was not responding. So three levels of the Geneva judiciary are apparently ignoring that the whistleblower has been prosecuted instead of her criminal complaints, by a prosecutor she has never met - behind closed doors - and that she has allegedly been denied the right to a fair trial and independent legal representation.

The whistleblower's allegations of her blacklisting (legal) since 2013 and treatment by the Geneva judiciary for years seem more than deserving of investigations, especially given the involvement of the state representative (Pascal Emery) on the Board of the organisation she blew the whistle on.

Chiabudini, amongst other things, apparently endorsed her criminalisation by a prosecutor, Lorena Henry, she has never met, with no witnesses, with a lawyer (Nehanda Mauron-Mutambirwa) whose forced appointment has been confirmed to be unjustified - by Henry herself. Moreover, the whistleblower has provided evidence to support allegations that she has been criminalised through a sham process, instead of her serious criminal complaints which had been referred by the Geneva Police and others to the Ministère public being prosecuted. The whistleblower claims that lawyers have worked against her best interests, evidence submitted was out of date and even rejected by the first prosecutor,?Judith Levy Owczarczak (who left months after her conclusions were due). At least one lawyer has been confirmed to be subject to a separate procedure by the Geneva Bar Commission.

The whistleblower is still waiting for the outcomes of her criminal complaints, dating back to 2013 and confirmed to be subject to proceedings.

Who is the President of the Commission de gestion du Pouvoir judiciaire, which organises and runs the Judiciary Power which autonomously manages the resources placed at its disposal by the Cantonal Parliament and ensures the coherence of the action of the Judiciary Power in cooperation with the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature?

None other than Olivier Jornot!

No wonder the EU Commission PROCEDURAL LAW UNIT has labelled a letter on about the case 'non_comp'.

If it is the case, as whistleblowers claim, that official channels are worse than failing whistleblowers, then what options do they have to report alleged failures which could impact the safety of children, consumers & the public?

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation The Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) Public Eye Gotham City The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project TRIAL International

?

?