International Criminal Court

Paragraph 1: I, Simon Prophet, accuse the following people of torturing me:

Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli and all those persons who were each and all at various times the National Director of Public Prosecutions, during my terrible ordeals and they who played crucial roles in torturing me by seeking out ways to punish me for an act that I was suspected of having committed outside of and away from my criminal trials in a manner that ignores the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that is diametrically opposed to lawful criminal law procedure.

NC Erasmus tortured me in a civil matter in the High Court of Cape Town (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division) case number 5926/01 when he ruled to punish me for an act I was suspected of having committed.

Paragraph 2: I ask the Prosecutor to arrest these people and bring them before the International Criminal Court and charge them according to my allegations.

Paragraph 3: “Torture” is defined by the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity and falls within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 4: Part 2 Article 5(b) of the Rome Statute; crimes against humanity:

Part 2 Article 7(1)(f) torture.

Part 2 Article (7)(2)(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused.”

Paragraph 5: The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 commenced in South Africa in 2002 “to provide a frame work to ensure the effective implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in South Africa.”

Paragraph 6: Section 5(1) of Act 27 of 2002 states “No prosecution may be instituted against a person accused of having committed a crime without the consent of the National Director” but here is a conflict of interest because I am the victim of the National Director.

Paragraph 7: In the years of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the National Directors of Public Prosecutions at that time are one and all being accused by me of having tortured me or having been complicit in those crimes.

Paragraph 8: The current National Director of Public Prosecutions, Shamila Batoh, is denying that I have been tortured.

Paragraph 9: The current National Director of Public Prosecutions is not going to institute a proceeding of criminal allegation against her predecessor or herself for being complicit.

Paragraph 10: On the 29^th of March 2023 I initiated criminal charges of perjury against Casper Hendrik Venter to the Cape Town Central Police Station criminal case docket number 1438/3/2023 wherein I alleged that Venter had lied about me in 2 affidavits.

Paragraph 11: These 2 affidavits in paragraph 10 are the same 2 affidavits that the National Director of Public Prosecutions submitted in 2002 into the trial of Erasmus High Court case number 5926/01.

Paragraph 12: On the 4^th January 2024, I was present when the police submitted my charges against Venter to the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, Mr Jacobs who refused to bring the matter to court.

Paragraph 13: In a matter that I brought before the Cape Town High Court, Simon Prophet verse the National Director of Public Prosecutions case number 5922/22 therein I have explained in detail to the National Director of Public Prosecutions exactly how these lies of Venter have been used by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to unlawfully lead people into believing that I am a criminal.

Paragraph 14: As a lay person battling as best I could within the legal system without legal assistance which is impossible for me to afford, I am unable to fathom how that case number 5922/22 is now mysteriously representing a different matter.

Paragraph 15: All of the documents mention in paragraph 13 with the original Court stamps are available on request and on one of those documents I also have the original signature of the Register of the Court, Nicola Hannekom. I also have receipts of delivery from the Sheriff's office so there can be no doubt as to the existence of the documents.

Paragraph 16: With regard to corruption, in 2023, Transparency International has placed South Africa at position 83 out of 180 countries which is a consideration that there will be negative impacts for anyone trying to bring to book authoritarian irregularities.

Paragraph 17: With regard to crime, South Africa has the world's 3^rd (third) highest crime ranking according to World Population Review.

Paragraph 18: On the 28^th of September 2007, when I was forcefully removed from my home in handcuffs, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, seized all of my assets. (SEE ANNEX 1 - LOSS OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY)

Paragraph 19: The only fixed income that I have is a social pension grant of 100 Eros per month and now, at seventy years of age, as a pauper, then no country will accept me and I have no option but to remain in South Africa.

Paragraph 20: In June 2015 the African National Congress government of South Africa has revealed its true colours by openly and unashamedly demonstrating its disregard for International Law when, in contempt of an order from the International Criminal Court, South Africa deliberately failed to arrest visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir whom the International Criminal Court had convicted for crimes of genocide.

Paragraph 21: From my experience, after having protested and appealed to the highest places in South Africa without success, I already know for a fact that I will not get a fair hearing anywhere in South Africa.

Paragraph 22: Bearing in mind the above I plead for the Prosecutor to bypass the National Director of Public Prosecutions and to bring my allegations directly to the head quarters of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Paragraph 23: I was arrested by the South African Police on the 31^st of January 2001 and I was put under the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. My bail conditions required for me to pay to the Cape Town Magistrate's Court R20 000. My passport was confiscated and I was detained and I was not permitted to go beyond the boundaries of the municipal district of Cape Town and I was compelled to sign every day Monday through to Sunday between the hours of 17h00 and 19h00 at the Woodstock Police Station. Failing to meet any one of these conditions would result in me being arrested and incarcerated.

Paragraph 24: I was released from the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions when I was acquitted of the criminal charges on the 8^th of April 2005 when Magistrate Le Roux told me that I was free to go. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 181 OF ANNEX 5)

Paragraph 25: Article 12 of the Rome Statute. Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction

“1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.”

Paragraph 26: On the 17^th July 1998, South Africa signed the Rome Statute which means that South Africa and the National Directors of Public Prosecutions meet the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction and South Africa has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court with respect to “torture”.

Paragraph 27: When Vladimir Putin was to host the August 2023 BRICS summit in South Africa then the African National Congress government of South Africa made an unsuccessful attempt to disengage from the Rome Statute in order not to have to arrest Putin for whom there was a warrant out for his arrest.

Paragraph 28: Article 15(1) of the Rome Statute Prosecutor

”The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”

Paragraph 29: Article 66(1), (2) and (3) of the Rome Statute. Presumption of innocence

“1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.

2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.

3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

Paragraph 30: There exists here a grotesque irony of what has been done to me by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus in relation to my charge against these same people that they will enjoy all the legal safety precautions put into place by law for people being accused of a crime but when I stood before them as an accused person then all of these laws regarding the rights of people being accused of crime then these same National Directors of Pubic Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me these same rights and trampled Constitutional and International law into the mud.

Paragraph 31: My criminal allegations against the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are allegations and the Prosecutor will decide whether or not to bring these people before the court to answer to my allegations.

Paragraph 32: In the event that National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are brought before the court to answer to my allegations then automatically the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus do have the right to a fair trial and all of Article 66 of the Rome Statute does apply and must be enforced.

Paragraph 33: These rights under Article 66 and all the rights of an accused person according to other laws come into immediate force and the law must and will guarantee that the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus receive a fair trial failing which they will be released.

Paragraph 34: When the National Director of Public Prosecutions brought me before Erasmus in his court as an accused person in 2002 and 2003 then the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus deprived me of all of these same rights that they will now be given the benefit to enjoy.

Paragraph 35: When I was facing, in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, criminal allegations in 2002 and 2003 then the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus, in the High Court, on a different platform outside the criminal court hearings, deprived me of all of the considerations in Article 66 of the Rome Statute and I was deprived of nearly every fundamental civil right as laid down in criminal law.

Paragraph 36: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to remain silent during the proceedings.”

Paragraph 37: The Rome statute also makes provision for this.

Paragraph 38: Article 55 of the Rome Statute: Rights of persons during an investigation:

“1. In respect of an investigation under this Statute, a person:

(a) Shall not be compelled to incriminate himself or herself or to confess guilt;

(b) Shall not be subjected to any form of coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Paragraph 39: In 2002 and 2003 the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me my right to silence during the proceedings of my criminal trials.

Paragraph 40: On the 11^th of January 2002, in the midst of my criminal trial, the National Director of Public Prosecutions terrorized me in a letter (SEE ANNEX 2 – TORTURE LETTER) sent to my lawyers that I would loose my garage sale business and my property and my home if I did not submit answering affidavits into the Erasmus civil trial on the same allegations I was facing in the criminal trial.

Paragraph 41: This is torture driving me away from my right to silence and through the terror of loosing my property, my home and my garage sale business I broke down under duress and sacrificed my right to silence in the hope of saving these things and I submitted answering affidavits to Erasmus.

Paragraph 42: The National Director of Public Prosecutions immediately unlawfully seized this information that was directly related to the identical allegations that I was facing in the criminal trial.

Paragraph 43: These submissions that I made under duress were then, in 2004, submitted by the National Director of Public Prosecutions into my criminal trial as the supposed to be evidence that I had committed the crime of which I was being accused. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 132 OF ANNEX 5)

Paragraph 44: The Erasmus civil trial was running concurrent with my criminal trial and in both trials the criminal allegations that were being presented against me in the criminal trial were the same and identical as in the civil trial.

Paragraph 45: The criminal allegations in both of the 2 criminal trials and in the Erasmus trial all stemmed from the same single arrest on the 31^st January 2001.

Paragraph 46: In the public domain, the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus did not presume my innocence during the proceedings of my 2 criminal trials.

Paragraph 47: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation.”

Paragraph 48: Prejudicing my criminal trials and for punishing me for a crime that did not and does not exist, Erasmus, gave permission for National newspapers throughout South Africa to report that I was a criminal.

Paragraph 49: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent during the proceedings.”

Paragraph 50: Article (11) (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.”

Paragraph 51: If the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are brought before the International Criminal Court then they will have the safety of Article 55(2)(b) of the Rome Statute with regard to the right to silence but in 2002 and 2003 both the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me this civil right on a platform outside of and during the proceedings of my 2 criminal trials.

Paragraph 52: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have commissioned scores of civil right violations and I make mention of some of these.

Paragraph 53: The civil rights to which I draw attention are some of those rights which exist and serve to support and give force to the crimes that I am alleging.

Paragraph 54: On the 22nd May 2003, Erasmus punished me during the proceedings of my criminal trial while I was a suspect.

Paragraph 55: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus did not prove my criminal guilt to any extent that is required by criminal law.

Paragraph 56: Article 14(2) of Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: . “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

Paragraph 57: Erasmus ignored procedural guarantees of my right to a fair criminal trial as envisaged by Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

Paragraph 58: Erasmus did not apply the principal of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Paragraph 59: Erasmus punished me on the grounds of a balance of probabilities and a suspicion.

Paragraph 60: There is no defence against a charge that accuses you of being a suspect.

Paragraph 61: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus deviated from what is compulsory according to the rule of law and according to International Law and criminal law procedures and these people invented their own formula to determine and arrive at a verdict of criminal guilt which is also diametrically in conflict with and inconsistent with South African Constitutional law and common law.

Paragraph 62: Supreme Court of Canada, case case number 17550, R v Oakes, see paragraph 29:

“The presumption of innocence is a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law. Although protected expressly in d)s. 11(of the Charter, the presumption of innocence is referable and integral to the general protection of life, liberty and security of the person contained in s.7 of the Charter (see Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, per Lamer J.) The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the State of criminal conduct. An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms. In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that until the State proves an accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law-abiding members of the community until proven otherwise.“

Paragraph 63: The National Director of Public Prosecutions did not enter any tangible evidence into the Erasmus trial.

Paragraph 64: Other than unsubstantiated and unfounded claims on pieces of paper the National Director of Public Prosecutions did not put forward into the court room a single physical object to support the criminal claims that were being made.

Paragraph 65: All of the “supposed” to be evidence that was seized on the 31^st January 2001 when I was arrested has been destroyed by the drug police and none of these articles appeared before Erasmus in his court room and this has been established as a fact in a trial and judgement on the 11^th January 2011 before Magistrate Eric Louw in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court which was a trial wherein I was desperately trying to force the drug police to return my chemicals and my laboratory after I had been acquitted.

Paragraph 66: In the Erasmus trial no oral cross examination took place and I was given not any opportunity to question my accusers before the judge because, for some reason, unbeknown to me, the National Director of Public Prosecutions did not summon a single witness into the court room.

Paragraph 67: In the complete absence of physical evidence and oral testimony, Erasmus arrived at his false conclusions about the criminal allegations against me from nothing more than hearsay allegations on pieces of paper and uncontested fictitious stories.

Paragraph 68: By deviating from what is demanded and is expected and is compulsory by established criminal law the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus made it impossible for me to present a defence against the criminal allegations.

Paragraph 69: I wasted my money to have employed lawyers and advocates.

Paragraph 70: I am and I have always been innocent of the criminal allegations of which I have been accused and of which Erasmus has punished me and as an accused person I am by absolute authority entitled to say that I am innocent by dictate of law.

Paragraph 71: I am 100% innocent of the allegations for which Erasmus has punished me.

Paragraph 72: Had I been pronounced guilty in either one of the criminal trials then the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus would have easily escaped the alleged crimes of which they are being accused.

Paragraph 73: Unfortunately for the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus I was found to be not guilty in both of the criminal trials.

Paragraph 74: It is inconceivable to me and it is devastatingly frustrating for me that, given the facts, and more than 20 years into this dreadfully painful terrible ordeal that has been forced upon me in the absence of any complaint and in the absence of a single allegation of wrong doing from any person from within the general population yet here I am still fighting tooth and nail to defend my dignity but allow me to make this as clear as a loud ringing bell to everyone that as of today and as has always been:

a) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being arbitrary deprived of my property without compensation.

b) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being arbitrary deprived of the safety and the security of my home with nowhere to go but into the crime invested streets of Cape Town.

c) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being arbitrary deprived of my garage sale business without compensation (SEE ANNEX 3 – GARAGE SALE BUSINESS)

d) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being unlawfully deprived of my employment.

e) I stand before the International Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully deprived of my income.

f) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished for an act I was suspected of having committed.

Paragraph 75: Everything outlined in 74 a), b), c), d), e) and f) happened to me because Erasmus decided that he could punish me because the National Director of Public Prosecutions accused me of being implicated in a crime that did not and does not exist.

Paragraph 76: I have no criminal record and I stand before the International Criminal Court with a Police Clearance Certificate that states that “no convictions have been recorded for any crime in the Republic of South Africa against Simon Prophet.” (SEE ANNEX 4 – POLICE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE)

Paragraph 77: When Erasmus punished me for being a criminal suspect there existed only an allegation of wrong doing coming from the drug police but that allegation was arrived at through the unlawful acts of the drug police (SEE TOP OF PAGE 162 OF ANNEX A5) and as it is now the allegation itself under scrutiny has been shown to have been unfounded (SEE TOP OF PAGE 118 OF ANNEX 5) and there is no proper official confirmed report that exists to say that any person has ever committed any crime that ever took place at any time in any hour of any day of any year at 54 Balfour Street.

Paragraph 78: Neither the National Directors of Public Prosecutions nor Erasmus have any confirmed or substantiated proof as is required by law that a crime did occur or has ever occurred at 54 Balfour Street.

Paragraph 79: Everyone who was charged for the alleged crimes that have been claimed to have happened at 54 Balfour Street have been found to be not guilty on the 8^th April 2005 in the criminal trial Cape Town Magistrate's Court case number 16/236/03 with Magistrate Le Roux as the presiding Magistrate and Sylvester Vogel and William Fisher as the legal defence team. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 181 OF ANNEX 5)

Paragraph 80: During this trial, after a lengthy examination of all the chemicals that were seized by the drug police, it was established that none of these chemicals were or are illegal to possess.

Paragraph 81: Under cross examination the arresting officer, Johan Smit, stated under oath during cross examination that the unlawful search (SEE TOP OF PAGE 162 OF ANNEX 5) conducted by the drug police did not produce anything at 54 Balfour Street that would warrant an arrest under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 118 OF ANNEX 5)

Paragraph 82: The same people who were charged in case number 16/236/03 also appeared in another and a second criminal trial also in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court case number 16/79/01 with Magistrate Matthews presiding and Norman Snitcher and Piet Mihalik as the legal defence team involving the identical allegations.

Paragraph 83: This criminal trial court case number 16/79/01 also did not convict anyone or confirm the criminal allegations because the case was set aside on 7^th April 2003 by an order from Judge J Louw and Judge J Motala in the Cape Town High Court Reference number 031188 case number 16/789/01 and by default all of the accused were acquitted.

Paragraph 84: Section 6(b) of the South African Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 states that "at any time after an accused has pleaded, but before conviction, stop the prosecution in respect of that charge, in which event the court trying the accused shall acquit the accused in respect of that charge."

Paragraph 85: Section 35(3)(m) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted.”

Paragraph 86: On the 22^nd May 2003, Erasmus made a ruling to punish me after my default acquittal and while I was still a suspect during the proceedings of the second criminal trial while both criminal trials were both dealing with the identical allegations that had been given to Erasmus by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 87: Article 14(7) of Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.”

Paragraph 88: Erasmus ignored my right to a trial of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Paragraph 89: In the International Criminal Court as those accused of crime, the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus can expect a trial where conviction demands “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” but in 2002 and 2003, neither the National Director of Public Prosecutions nor Erasmus allowed me the benefit of this same law.

Paragraph 90: The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus ignored the law, denied me my right of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and used a “balance of probabilities” and a “suspicion” to convict me.

Paragraph 91: Under the umbrella of suspicion Erasmus cast my dignity into the gutter.

Paragraph 92: In the International Criminal Court the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus will have the right to a fair trial but in 2003 Erasmus punished me for criminal allegations relating to an alleged crime that did not exist and still today these alleged crimes exist only in imagination and on a hunch and/or a gut feeling.

Paragraph 93: None of the criminal allegations for which Erasmus punished me exist in real life.

Paragraph 94: Erasmus punished me for being a suspect which under International Law is boldly identified as an act of torture and according to the Rome Statute, “torture” is seen to be a crime against humanity.

Paragraph 95: Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1):

“For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as punishing him for an act he is suspected of having committed.”

Paragraph 96: Article 7(1)(f) of the Rome Statute holds torture under the heading of Crimes Against Humanity and for the purpose of paragraph 1 Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute states that “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person under the control of the accused;”

Paragraph 97: Section 12(1)(d) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be tortured in any way.”

Paragraph 98: The Prevention of Combating and Torture of Persons Act 13 of 2013 only came into effect in South Africa after 2013, after the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus had allegedly tortured me but the Preamble of Act 13 makes a startling revelation:

“AND MINDFUL that the Republic of South Africa — has a shameful history of gross human rights abuses, including the torture of many of its citizens and inhabitants;”

Paragraph 99: Erasmus made it clear in his judgement that he did not and would not give me the right to silence during the proceedings of my criminal trials.

Paragraph 100: In paragraph 11 of his judgement, Erasmus excuses away my right to silence: “In principle then in every such case where civil and criminal proceedings are instituted by the same activity the respondent is called upon to make a tough choice. He must weigh up the consequences and resolve the ‘dilemma’ in which he finds himself.”

Paragraph 101: I submitted affidavits into the civil trial because the National Director of Public Prosecutions had tortured me into signing those affidavits.

Paragraph 102: Outside of the criminal trials Erasmus declared that I was guilty and he punished me while I was an accused person being presumed to be innocent.

Paragraph 103: While I was awaiting the criminal trial as an accused person in the criminal trial and being presumed to be innocent, Erasmus condemned me and proclaimed that I was guilty and he punished me while I was a suspect and in paragraph 12 of his judgement, with his pathetic inability to properly comprehend and interpret the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 he ends up proclaiming about me: “Accordingly both the importation of phenyl acetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone puts respondent firmly within the definition of having dealt in an undesirable dependence producing drug” which is a pack of lies because neither phenyl acetic acid nor 1-phenyl-2-propanone are drugs, not in the world of chemistry nor in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 and neither of these industrial chemicals contain any narcotic properties whatsoever.

Paragraph 104: Under the fear and the terror of losing everything the National Director of Public Prosecutions succeeded in forcing me, under duress, to sign and submit answering affidavits regarding the criminal allegations that I was facing in the forthcoming criminal trials and violated my right to silence in those trials by torturing me with the threat and the fear of loosing everything.

Paragraph 105: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right not to testify, during the proceedings.”

Paragraph 106: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to remain silent during the proceedings.”

Paragraph 107: I am the victim of crimes that are defined as torture and torture is included as a crime against humanity.

Paragraph 108: To be punished for a crime that I have not committed obviously is also a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Paragraph 109: Hypocrisy reigns supreme when South Africa tortures me while it condemns Israel.

Paragraph 110: High ranking South African Judges and signatories at the International Court of Justice have condemned Israel but where were they and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when Erasmus was torturing me?

Paragraph 111: Where are they now and where is Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke while I am shouting from the roof tops about how I have been tortured?

Paragraph 112: The judges complained that homes were bombed in Gaza but where were they and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when Erasmus deprived me of my home and had me cast into the darkness and the dangers of the crime riddled streets of one of the world's most dangerous places?

Paragraph 113: My civil right to the safety and the security of my home was denied by Erasmus.

Paragraph 114: Article 25 1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to housing.”

Paragraph 115: Where were these judges and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when the National Director of Public Prosecutions engineered for me to be arrested on false charges and taken away from my home in handcuffs while the National Director of Public Prosecutions plundered all of my private possessions including my two cars? (SEE ANNEX 1 - LOSS OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY)

Paragraph 116: Where were these judges and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when the National Director of Public Prosecutions was grabbing everything in sight and unlawfully enriching itself with the theft of my life's labour?

Paragraph 117: Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to own property. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

Paragraph 118: The African National Congress government was bankrupt at that time when it brought the allegations against Israel.

Paragraph 119: The African National Congress government failed in its bid to overturn a High Court judgement that ordered the seizure of its assets after failing to pay 102 million rand to Ezulwini Investments.

Paragraph 120: The rumour on social media platforms is that the African National Congress government received an undisclosed amount of money from Iran in exchange for taking Israel to the International Court of Justice.

Paragraph 121: South Africa spent millions to accuse Israel of wrong doing but at home without conscience, South Africa, Erasmus,and scores of high ranking judges deprived me of my garage sale business and convicted me into the ranks of the unemployed.

Paragraph 122: Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment and to protection against unemployment.”

Paragraph 123: It might appear trivial to mention unemployment next to war crimes but Statista ranks South Africa as having the world's highest unemployment rate with 28.4% of the South African population unemployed.

Paragraph 124: Some say that 60% of South African youth are unemployed and many of them in the whole extent of their lives will never know what it is to have a job.

Paragraph 125: Where is the justification for the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus to have deprived me of my garage sale business and to have deprived the people who did enjoy and could still be gaining benefit from that enterprise?

Paragraph 126: On the 24^th April 2023 I complained about the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus to the Judicial Service Commission.

Paragraph 127: On the 14^th of December 2023 the Commission replied to tell me that my complaint was “frivolous and lacking in substance.”

Paragraph 128: On the 15^th of January 2024 I appealed.

Paragraph 129: On the the 14^th August 2024 the Judicial Conduct Committee made a ruling to say that my complaint was convoluted and “the Committee could not make head or tail of it.”

Paragraph 130: Apparently Erasmus, in reply to my complaints stated that there was no merit in my complaint “as it emanates from a judgement he made almost 20 years ago.”

Paragraph 131: Crimes against humanity that were committed against Jewish people 70 years ago during the Second World War are still being prosecuted today.

Paragraph 132: Torture does not come with a statute of limitations.

Paragraph 133: On the 21^st August 2009 when I was making progress to challenge the alleged unlawful acts that have been committed against me by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus then 2 men were paid to murder me and the horror of that attack and the fear that there was a real possibility that there might be another attempt on my life made me withdraw. (SEE ANNEX 6 – INJURIES INFLICTED)

Paragraph 134: The incident in the previous paragraph included the death of Mr Codloza who succumbed to his injuries which is recorded in the Kraaifontein Police Station case number 800/801/8/2009 and 15 years later, today, on the 4^th of September 2024 we are still waiting for the Inquest to be heard.

Paragraph 135: As I draft these new complaints against the same people mentioned in paragraph 133 but this time for the attention of the International Criminal Court I am again filled with fear for my life because again someone may get paid to do away with me.

Paragraph 136: I have been told that before Erasmus became a judge he was an attorney who defended members of criminal gangs on the Cape Flats and around Cape Town.

Paragraph 137: It is my opinion that in the event that the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are found to be guilty of my allegations against them then it will imply that a lot of people including Lawrence Mushwana and Pandelis Gregoroiu of the South African Human Rights Commission and Shamila Batohi, the current National Director of Public Prosecutions who have turned a blind eye to my pleadings about having been tortured, the Supreme Court Judges, Mpati, Streicher, Mithyane, Cloete and Ponnana, who upheld the Erasmus Judgement, the Constitutional Court judges who also upheld the Erasmus Judgement, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, O’Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob and Nkabinde, and also the Acting Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, Chief Justice Maya and the judges of the Judicial Conduct Committee, Jafta, Shongwe, Saldulker and Mabindla-Boqwana who have all given their approval and have colluded with the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus and agreed with the Erasmus judgement that punished me for an act I was suspected of having committed, these people, one and all, including the advocates Jeremy Gauntlet and Win Trengrove who don't know me from a bar of soap, who have never met me or spoken to me and know nothing about me and who were employed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to destroy me and as people trained in law who should have known or, at the very least, should have suspected that what was being done to me was against the law, and including Mr Jacobs, the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court who cowardly has tried to conceal alleged unlawful actions relating to my allegations, these people all, are, according to me, complicit in the alleged crimes of the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus in that they have actively engaged against me or they have attempted to conceal the crimes that I am alleging.

Paragraph 138: Article 4(1) of Part One of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: “...all acts of torture are offences under ...criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity in torture.”

Paragraph 139: For me, a nobody, with nothing, alone and against the colossal might of so many people in such exalted positions it has not been easy but I know that I am right and I know what is written in the law and I know what the law allows and I know what the law does not allow and for however long this might take, I know that at the end of the day the law is agreeing with me and for those, no matter how high and almighty they may imagine themselves to be, for them, who have tread the wrong path against me when there is no reasonable explanation for them not to have known better, they are going to be called to account.

Paragraph 140: There exists nothing in any law that is rightful and acceptable in any civilized country in any part of the world that allows for a man who has been acquitted of a crime for that man to be punished by the state for the same crime of which he has been acquitted and there is no excuse for any judge or any advocate or any member of the courts to plead ignorance of this fact and there can be no exceptions.

Paragraph 141: I am homeless and destitute and obviously without the resources there is no way for me to be able to prove or show that powerful people have ganged up against me and have colluded together to engage unlawful acts to ruin me in order to propagate certain sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 that contains flagrant violations of Constitutional law that under thorough investigation and proper scrutiny are indefensible.

Paragraph 142: Without money or means I must push forward to do the best I can to ensure that justice will be done.

Paragraph 143: I am at the International Criminal Court pleading to the compassion and the wisdom of the Prosecutor and to the righteousness of the International Criminal Court to see my allegations for what they are and to help not only me but to serve the generations of people to come.

Paragraph 144: I am pleading to the International Criminal Court to show to the world that in the long run then justice will always prevail.

Paragraph 145: For party states that are signed into the Rome Statute never should any of those countries be permitted to engage unlawful practices.

Paragraph 146: The Rome Statute guarantees that no state will be permitted to the engage ruthless torture of citizens and to set into motion and applaud far reaching unlawful legal actions that allow for innocent people to be punished on account of unconfirmed allegations and on account of hearsay stories when those people are law abiding citizens.

Paragraph 147: Depriving me of my home, my personal possessions, my land, my employment, my income, my property, my business, my cars and to strip me of my life's labour without compensation because of a crime that does not exist nor ever has existed is an act of monstrous cruelty that is inexcusable.

Paragraph 148: The failure of the South African judges at the highest of levels to acknowledge and to respect my innocence being true then this reveals a despicable and shameful disregard of the most basic laws of human rights and the rule of law.

Paragraph 149: For the National Directors of Public Prosecutions to deprive me of the safety of my home and to cast me out into a vicious domain where Cape Town ranks as one of the most dangerous places in the world is South Africa's disgraceful public demonstration of being uncivilized to the point of being barbaric.

Paragraph 150: I refuse to allow the commissioning of International Crimes Against Humanity that cheers to give itself a pat on the back when in the greater picture of life, what has been done to me is a deplorable criminal attack against all members of the human family.

Paragraph 151: I will accept the discretion of the International Criminal Court but for compensation for my material losses and for compensation for the pain and suffering that I have endured for over 20 years then I am seeking anywhere between 1 million Eros and 56 million Euros which is a lot of money but, at the same time, is but only a fraction of what was awarded against Alex Jones in his defamation trials.

Paragraph 152: Reuters has reported that Alex Jones has been ordered to pay $1.1 billion in defamation damages stemming from his repeated lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.

Paragraph 153: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have broken the law to tell lies about me and their lies have been repeated from one court room to the next, which took the lies to the media outlets including full front page National newspapers throughout the whole of South Africa to the point where the lies have come to be believed.

Paragraph 154: Both my life and my dignity have been destroyed beyond repair on account of those lies.

Paragraph 155: A precedent needs to be set so that what has been done to me will never be allowed to happen to anyone in the future again and again and again on a continuous and an ongoing basis which is what has been and still is the intention of the National Directors of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 156: It is my contention that there is an unholy ulterior motive that lurks behind the civil asset forfeiture of my property in Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 157: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have used me to set up, enforce and applaud unlawful sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 that is giving permission to the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and gives permission to any Judge to use uncontested unsubstantiated hearsay allegations against any innocent people and to unlawfully punish law abiding citizens by arbitrary depriving them of all of their property without compensation and also to arbitrary deprive them of their businesses without compensation and thereby opening an unlawful legal channel that allows the African National Congress government or any government to unlawfully enrich itself through ill gotten gains.

Paragraph 158: Unless something drastic is done then these unlawful acts will continue to flourish.

Paragraph 159: I pray for the torturing and the cruelty to stop here.

Above are Simon Prophet's submission to the International Criminal Court.

Submitted on the 24^th of September 2024.

Paragraph 1 to paragraph 159 as to how he has been tortured.

6 Annexes support the submission.

Annex 1 - loss of and damage to property – see paragraph 18 and 115.

Annex 2 - torture letter – see paragraph 40.

Annex 3 - garage sale business – see paragraph 74(c).

Annex 4 - police clearance certificate – see paragraph 76.

Annex 5 - criminal trial transcripts – see paragraph 24, 43, 77, 79 and 81.

Annex 6 – injuries inflicted – see paragraph 133.

Annex 7 – National Identity Card.

Understanding the International Criminal Court

Paragraph 1. Thank you so much for bringing “Understanding the International Court” to our attention which has confirmed to us that Simon Prophet's complaints against the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa represent a text book example of a matter that does fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and deserves the urgent attention of the International Criminal Court.

Preamble to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

On 17 July 1998, 120 States adopted a statute in Rome - known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“the Rome Statute”) - establishing the International Criminal Court. For the first time in the history of humankind, States decided to accept the jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their territories or by their nationals after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002.

The International Criminal Court is not a substitute for national courts. According to the Rome Statute, it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. The International Criminal Court can only intervene where a State is unable or unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation and prosecute the perpetrators.

The primary mission of the International Criminal Court is to help put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.

A well-informed public can contribute to guaranteeing lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice. The purpose of this booklet is to promote a better understanding of the International Criminal Court by providing answers to the most frequently asked questions about the court.

The International Criminal Court can only intervene where a State is ... unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation and prosecute the perpetrators.

Paragraph 2. For more than 20 years Simon Prophet has been doing everything within his power within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa to find justice after he has allegedly been tortured by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus but all to no avail.

Paragraph 3. Every authority within the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is refusing to consider Simon Prophet's allegations of having been tortured by the National Director Of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus.

Paragraph 4. It currently does appear that the perpetrators of these alleged crimes are enjoying impunity and are going to be able to escape not only the law but even also a fair investigation into the matter unless the International Criminal Court intervenes.

Paragraph 5. Every authority within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations and every authority is “unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation” much less prosecute the perpetrators.

Paragraph 6. The National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

See Cape Town High Court, case number 5922/22, Prophet versus the National Director of Public Prosecutions and also see paragraph 13, paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 of Simon Prophet's submissions to the Prosecutor, Submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1.

Paragraph 7. The Supreme Court of Appeal of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial and has rejected Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

See Supreme Court of Appeal, Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT56/05) [2006] ZACC 17; 2007 (2) BCLR 140 (CC); 2006 (2) SACR 525 (CC) ; 2007 (6) SA 169 (CC) (29 September 2006).

Paragraph 8. The Constitutional Court of the State of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial and has rejected Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

See Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT56/05) [2006] ZACC 17; 2007 (2) BCLR 140 (CC); 2006 (2) SACR 525 (CC) ; 2007 (6) SA 169 (CC) (29 September 2006)

Paragraph 9. The South African Police of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is not entirely in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture but their hands are tied to decisions made by the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

i) See paragraph 10 of Simon Prophet's Submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1 which refers to criminal charges of perjury against Casper Hendrik Venter to the Cape Town Central Police Station criminal case docket number 1438/3/2023 that was submitted to the Cape Town Central Police Station of the South African Police of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

ii) These same allegations of perjury were also submitted to the Judicial Service Commission of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa and the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

Iii) Simon Prophet's affidavit against Judge Erasmus called “The Sentence of Seven Lies” was presented to the Front Office of the Cape Town Central Police Station of South African Police who refused to read the affidavit or even look at the affidavit.

iv) Simon Prophet published a book called “Criminal Allegations” which includes the allegations of torture and this book was submitted to Lieutenant Colonel Lotz of the Woodstock Police Station which falls under the South African police of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

v) This book “Criminal Allegations” has been published on the internet in several places and can be studied on the following link:

vi) Lieutenant Colonel Lotz submitted the criminal allegations to Mr Jacobs, the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa who refused to bring the allegations to court and returned the documents to the police with a note to say that the Criminal Allegations “contains no proof of criminal acts”.

Paragraph 10. The Judicial Service Commission of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

Paragraph 11. The Judicial Conduct Committee of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

The book “Criminal Allegations” including Simon Prophet's affidavit on Judge Erasmus “The Sentence of Seven Lies” including the book “My Appeal to the Judicial Service Commission” were submitted to the Judicial Conduct Committee who replied with a short assessment, Ref no: JSC/1094/23 which in short was a refusal to participate with the questionnaire and Simon Prophet's allegations of torture were rejected and denied. All the emails from the Judicial Conduct Committee to Simon Prophet are available on request.

Paragraph 12. The South African Human Rights Commission of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

All relevant documents, the book “Criminal Allegations” including Simon Prophet's affidavit on Judge Erasmus “The Sentence of Seven Lies” and Simon Prophet's affidavit on Casper Venter “The Impossible Volume and the Impossible Formulae” affidavit including the book “My Appeal to the Judicial Service Commission” regarding criminal allegations and crimes of torture including all the court documents to the High Court of Cape Town, Simon Prophet versus the National Director of Public Prosecutions case number 5922/22 have been submitted to the South African Commission of Human Rights over a period of many years starting from 2007 and no reaction has been forthcoming.

See: When given an opportunity to explain that torture is a crime against humanity one would think that the South African Human Rights Commission would be the place to go to establish what the law says about torture but apparently the South African Human Rights Commission don't have a clue. Follow the link below.

See: For more in depth details on how void of action are the South African Human Rights Commission click on the below link and scroll down to Chapter 12 and click that link on the Content Page.

Paragraph 13. Judge Erasmus of the High Court of the Western Cape of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

i) See National Director of Public Prosecutions v Prophet (5926/01) [2003] ZAWCHC 16; 2003 (6) SA 154 (C); 2003 (2) SACR 287 (C); 2003 (8) BCLR 906 (C) (22 May 2003).

ii) See also Judge Erasmus reply to the Judicial Conduct Committee Ref no: JSC/1094/23.

iii) See click on the below link and scroll down to Chapter 5 and click that link on the Content Page.

Paragraph 14. The Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

In pleading with the Senior Public Prosecutor Simon Prophet delivered a letter by hand to the office of the Senior Public Prosecutor and not even a note of receivership was forthcoming from that office.

Paragraph 15. Simon Prophet has exhausted all possible avenues to find relief within the Party State of the Republic State of South Africa to rectify the wrongs of having allegedly been tortured by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus.

Paragraph 16. It should be obvious to anyone and everyone from the above inclusions of constant denial and unwillingness and refusal to consider Simon Prophet's criminal allegations of torture that Simon Prophet has no alternative but to apply to the International Criminal Court for help.

...put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern..

Paragraph 17. The ruthless torture of innocent law abiding citizens cannot be tolerated.

Paragraph 18. Simon Prophet has allegedly been tortured and the details of those criminal allegations are out in the open and all the facts are there to support the allegations.

..public can contribute to guaranteeing lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice.

Paragraph 19. As a victim of allegedly having been tortured by the National Director of Public Prosecutions and by Judge Erasmus it is Simon Prophet's solemn duty to bring these alleged crimes to the attention of the Prosecutor so that local law within the Party State of the Republic of South Africa and also International Law is respected.

1. What is the International Criminal Court?
The International Criminal Court (“the ICC” or “the Court”) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

...crimes against humanity

Paragraph 20. Paragraph 1 of “understanding the International Criminal Court” above makes it abundantly clear and unless the Rome Statute is going to remove “crimes against humanity” or “torture” from this list then Simon Prophet's case is most definitely within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as the following inclusions of the Rome Statute will confirm.

Paragraph 21. The Rome Statute defines “Torture” as a crime against humanity.

Part 2 Article 5(b) of the Rome Statute; crimes against humanity:

Part 2 Article 7(1)(f) torture.

Part 2 Article (7)(2)(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused.”

Paragraph 22. Simon Prophet was arrested by the South African Police on the 31^st of January 2001 and remained “under the control of” the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa until the 8^th of April 2005 when he was told by the Cape Town Magistrate's Court the Party State of the Republic of South Africa that he was free to go after he had been acquitted of the criminal allegations.

Paragraph 23. Simon Prophet's right to silence during the criminal proceedings and Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 5926/01 and Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 6/236/03 was denied by the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the State the Republic of South Africa who proceeded to allegedly torture Simon Prophet using the threat to deprive him of his home and his property and his business all without compensation if he did not submit answering affidavits relating to the criminal charges that he was facing in the same criminal trials.

Paragraph 24. See Annex 2 of Simon Prophet's International Criminal Court's Submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1, the “Torture Letter”, dated the 11^th January 2002.

Paragraph 25. Judge Erasmus agreed with these alleged violations of law and proceeded to punish Simon Prophet for the crime of which Simon Prophet was suspected of having committed.

Paragraph 26. These confirmed actions of Judge Erasmus fall into a legal category which is defined by International law as a crime of torture.

Paragraph 27. Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1):

Paragraph 28. On face value from the above paragraph 27 with regard to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus crimes of torture have been commissioned and the details of the events above are common knowledge and is all confirmed by what is known and is all recorded in Government records and in court records including records held by the Constitutional Court of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

3. What is the Rome Statute?
On 17 July 1998, a conference of 160 States established the first treaty-based permanent international criminal court. The treaty adopted during that conference is known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Among other things, it sets out the crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the rules of procedure and the mechanisms for States to cooperate with the ICC. The countries which have accepted these rules are known as States Parties and are represented in the Assembly of States Parties.

Paragraph 29. The Republic of South Africa is a “State Party”.

Paragraph 30. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are subject to the Rome Statute and fall under the jurisdiction of these rules and are bound to comply with these rules and may not commit a crime that falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and committing such a crime leads to prosecution.

Paragraph 31. Under no circumstances may the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus commit crimes of torture.

Paragraph 32. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are forbidden to engage any type or form of torture and they are also forbidden to engage to torture anyone even when it is only a little bit of torture.

Paragraph 33. Torture is forbidden.

7. How does the ICC differ from other courts?

The ICC is a permanent autonomous court, whereas the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as other similar courts established within the framework of the United Nations to deal with specific situations only have a limited mandate and jurisdiction. The ICC, which tries individuals, is also different from the International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations for the settlement of disputes between States. The ad hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice also have their seats in The Hague.

…..tries individuals...

Paragraph 34. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are “individuals” and are subject to the Rome Statute and fall under the jurisdiction of these rules and are bound to comply with these laws and their failure to comply with these laws is an offence under the Rome Statute.

Paragraph 35. Simon Prophet's complaints to the Prosecutor is a text book example of what falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 36. Simon Prophet's allegations of torture include not one form of torture but three different kinds of torture. Simon Prophet's allegations of torture include:

ONE: Tortured by being threatened to give information.

a) Being threatened by the National Director of Public Prosecutions with great harm if Simon Prophet did not give information relating to the criminal charges that he was facing in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 5926/01 and the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 6/236/03.

b) These threats were delivered during the proceedings of Simon Prophet's criminal trials and also violated the Miranda laws of Simon Prophet's right to silence and Section 35(3)(h) the South African Constitution of Simon Prophet's right not to testify during the proceedings of those criminal trials.

TWO: Tortured by being threatened to confess.

a) The National Director of Public Prosecutions terrorized Simon Prophet with the horrifying harm of great loss if Simon Prophet did not confess to the alleged crimes of which Simon Prophet was facing in Simon Prophet's criminal trials of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 5926/01 and the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 6/236/03.

b) The National Director of Public Prosecutions used these confessions of Simon Prophet in Simon Prophet's criminal trials in an attempt to prove that Simon Prophet had confessed to the criminal allegations. See paragraph 43 of Simon Prophet's submissions to the Prosecutor ID#be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1.

THREE: Tortured by being punished for being a suspect.

a) According to how the law is written certain acts are defined as acts of torture and it would appear from that written law that Judge Erasmus did torture Simon Prophet by punishing Simon Prophet for the criminal acts that Simon Prophet was suspected of having committed in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 5926/01 and the Cape Town Magistrate's Court Case Number 6/236/03 during the proceedings of those same criminal trials and allegations.

b) Judge Erasmus punished Simon Prophet for a crime that Simon Prophet never committed and not only was Simon Prophet punished for an act he was suspected of having committed but the alleged crime itself has never existed.

8. Is the ICC an office or agency of the United Nations?

No. The ICC is an independent body whose mission is to try individuals for crimes within its jurisdiction without the need for a special mandate from the United Nations. On 4 October 2004, the ICC and the United Nations signed an agreement governing their institutional relationship.

...mission is to try individuals for crimes within its jurisdiction

Paragraph 37. Torture is within the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute.

Paragraph 38. The Party State of the Republic of South Africa falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 39. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are “individuals” and are being accused of having committed the acts of torturing Simon Prophet which is clearly defined in the Rome Statute.

Paragraph 40. To threaten Simon Prophet with harm is intimidation but to threaten Simon Prophet with harm in order to extract information from him in the exact time frame when the law provides for his Constitutional and International unquestionable legal right to Simon Prophet's guaranteed right to silence then such an act of threatening is defined as torture.

Paragraph 41. During Simon Prophet's criminal trial the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, threatened Simon Prophet with unimaginable harm in order to extract information from Simon Prophet about the criminal allegations which was later used as evidence against Simon Prophet in the criminal trial.

Paragraph 42. To punish Simon Prophet for an act that he is suspected of having committed is another form of torture as is defined by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1).

Paragraph 43. In 2003, in the absence of any witnesses and without evidence as is required in criminal law, Judge Erasmus punished Simon Prophet while Simon Prophet was a suspect during the proceedings of Simon Prophet's criminal trials.

Paragraph 44. It was not until 2005 that the criminal suspicions were halted when Simon Prophet was acquitted of the same criminal allegations for which Judge Erasmus punished Simon Prophet by using a supposed to be allowed premise of suspicion.

Paragraph 45. Simon Prophet has described the Judge Erasmus trial as the “Erasmus Torture Chamber” which is essentially what it allegedly was taking into account all the facts.

9. Is the ICC meant to replace national courts?
No. The ICC does not replace national criminal justice systems; rather, it complements them. It can investigate and, where warranted, prosecute and try individuals only if the State concerned does not, cannot or is unwilling genuinely to do so. This might occur where proceedings are unduly delayed or are intended to shield individuals from their criminal responsibility. This is known as the principle of complementarity, under which priority is given to national systems. States retain primary responsibility for trying the perpetrators of the most serious of crimes.

...only if the State concerned does not, cannot or is unwilling genuinely to do so.

Paragraph 46. For more than 20 years Simon Prophet has been doing everything within his power within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa to find justice after he has allegedly been tortured by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus and thus far Simon Prophet's efforts have been all to no avail.

Paragraph 47. Every authority is refusing to consider Simon Prophet's allegations of having been tortured by the National Director Of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus and it currently does appear that the alleged perpetrators of these alleged crimes do have impunity and are going to be able to escape the law unless the International Criminal Court intervenes.

Paragraph 48. Simon Prophet has appealed everywhere in Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

Three appeals through the Cape Town High Court, one appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, one appeal to the Constitutional Court, one appeal to the Land Claims Court, several appeals to the South African Police, since 2007 continuous appeals to the South African Human Rights Commission, since 2005 several appeals to the Public Protector, one appeal to the Judicial Service Commission, two appeals to the Judicial Conduct Committee, several appeals to private human rights organizations, Legal Aid, Non Profit Organizations, universities, lecturers of law, professors of law, lawyers, advocates, legal firms, on the internet, appeals put forward in a 60 minute DVD documentary about the violations of law distributed through social media and directly to members of the public, appeals on the Simon Prophet website click below:

appeals in 4 books which have been published, “Justice will be done in Cape Town”, “Criminal Allegations”, “My appeal to the Judicial Service Commission”, “Register of Petitions”, appeals on Face Book, videos have been uploaded onto You Tube with comments published and spread far and wide, appeals in direct contact with the public with a petition that is signed by 10 thousand people and everywhere and anywhere that Simon Prophet can imagine where he might find help.

Paragraph 49. While petitioning in the streets, journalists approached Simon Prophet, one journalist even bringing a photographer while interviewing Simon Prophet but the editors of all those newspapers would not allow Simon Prophet's testimony to be published.

Paragraph 50. Media 24 has published scores of untruthful derogatory articles about Simon Prophet but Simon Prophet's side of the story has never been allowed to be aired.

Paragraph 51. In 2003 Simon Prophet went so far as to pay R3 893 to a local newspaper to place a small advertisement in an attempt to clarify Simon Prophet's position but the day before Simon Prophet's letter was to appear the editorial staff informed Simon Prophet that his letter would not be published for legal reasons.

Paragraph 52. This is not of concern to the International Criminal Court but it does serve to say that for main stream media the Simon Prophet case is a sensitive issue and makes a lot of important people look not so good.

Paragraph 53. However, as far as Simon Prophet is concerned torture is still torture and regardless of who is so being accused, the alleged criminal issues are out in the open via the internet and a conscientious public does expect an unbiased investigation for the allegations to be fairly determined to be true or not.

Paragraph 54. Those individuals who have allegedly so engaged against Simon Prophet may not want to own up to the error of their ways but being in high places does not absolve them from crimes that they might have committed especially when those alleged crimes fall into the category of crimes against humanity.

Paragraph 55. Crime is crime and torture is torture.

Paragraph 56. All of so much effort seems out of proportion to be fighting for the return of a property that the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa sold for a measly 14 thousand Euros.

Paragraph 57. If it cost 2 Euros to collect 1 signature then for Simon Prophet to have gathered the 10 thousand signatures alone cost more than what the National Director Of Public Prosecutions recovered from the alleged unlawful sale of Simon Prophet's home.

Paragraph 58. Simon Prophet has spent millions of rands fighting this case.

Paragraph 59. For more than 20 years of fighting against these injustices it has not merely been a fight to recover a property or about money.

Paragraph 60. In the greater scheme of things this fight is about the fundamental inalienable human right of every person living in the civilized world that no one need live in the fear that Party States can torture innocent law abiding citizens.

Paragraph 61. When the Party State of the Republic of South Africa can engage such acts of torture then it means that all Party States throughout the world can also engage the same acts of torture which means that throughout the world then billions, not millions, of people are at risk.

Paragraph 62. When this is realized then an entirely different picture begins to emerge and the sacrifices being made by Simon Prophet become truly justifiable and more than, Simon Prophet becomes revered and is deserving of honour for his contribution to the betterment of our world.

Paragraph 63. Even in the event that someone is guilty then the same laws to protect any and all people from being tortured still applies and is undeniably firmly structured into the Rome Statute, national and international laws, and by necessity while we call ourselves civilized, such laws must be upheld and diligently enforced when such crimes are shown to occur.

Paragraph 64. Regardless of who they might be, torturers who become suspected must not be allowed to escape investigation.

Paragraph 65. People of the world must be assured that we are able to live our lives with the peace of mind to know that the Rome Statute is there to hold torturers accountable when the line is shown to have been crossed.

Paragraph 66. Anyone who is reasonable will agree that the level of cruelty to which Simon Prophet has been subjected is far outside and beyond the boundaries permitted by law but thus far Simon Prophet's appeals to put right the wrongs all have failed and thus far the National Director Of Public Prosecutions has achieved its agenda to allegedly unlawfully ruin Simon Prophet and thus far the National Director Of Public Prosecutions is winning the fight but Simon Prophet will not back down.

Paragraph 67. Every authority within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations and every South African authority is “unwilling genuinely to carry out the investigation” much less prosecute the perpetrators.

i) The National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

ii)The Supreme Court of Appeal of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial and has rejected Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

iii) The Constitutional Court of the State of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial and has rejected Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

iv)The South African Police of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

v) The Judicial Service Commission of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

vi) The Judicial Conduct Committee of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

vii) The South African Human Rights Commission of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

viii) Judge Erasmus of the High Court of the Western Cape of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is in denial of Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

ix) The Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is denying Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

Paragraph 68. Simon Prophet has exhausted all possible avenues within the Party State of the Republic of South Africa to rectify the wrongs of having allegedly been tortured by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus.

Paragraph 69. It should be obvious to anyone and everyone from the above inclusions of constant denial and unwillingness and refusal to consider Simon Prophet's criminal allegations of torture that Simon Prophet has reached a turning point where now he has no alternative but to apply to the International Criminal Court for help.

...is unwilling genuinely to do so.

Paragraph 70. Criminals do not volunteer to put themselves into jail and most likely always plead not guilty when questioned.

Paragraph 71. It has been conclusively shown that neither Judge Erasmus nor the National Director of Public Prosecutions are going to admit that they have tortured Simon Prophet but what they have done to Simon Prophet is on face value defined as torture and this is obvious when you look at the actions and the times when they occurred bearing in mind what is written in the law books and what the law dictates.

Paragraph 72. For Simon Prophet, being the alleged victim of such alleged crimes the catch phrase “alleged” has no place and no meaning.

Paragraph 73. As far as Simon Prophet is concerned these supposed to be allegations are undeniable crimes of torture and crimes against humanity and there must come a reckoning.

Paragraph 74. Regardless of the wall of denial, Simon Prophet is not ever going to back down.

Paragraph 75. Torture is torture and something has to be done about what has happened to Simon Prophet.

10. Under what conditions does the ICC exercise its jurisdiction?
When a State becomes a party to the Rome Statute, it agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to the crimes enumerated in the Statute. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction in situations where the alleged perpetrator is a national of a State Party or where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party. Also, a State not party to the Statute may decide to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC. These conditions do not apply when the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, refers a situation to the Office of the Prosecutor.

...When a State becomes a party to the Rome Statute, it agrees to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Paragraph 76. The Republic of South Africa is a Party State to the Rome Statute and therefore has agreed to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

...where the crime was committed in the territory of a State Party.

Paragraph 77. Simon Prophet's allegation is that he was tortured in the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

11. Is the ICC’s jurisdiction time bound?
The ICC has jurisdiction only with respect to events which occurred after the entry into force of its Statute on 1 July 2002. If a State becomes a party to the Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC retroactively. However, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction with respect to events which occurred before 1 July 2002. For a new State Party, the Statute enters into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

...with respect to events which occurred after the entry into force of its Statute on 1 July 2002.

Paragraph 78. The “Torture Letter” (see Annex 2 of Simon Prophet's Submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1) of the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is dated 11^th January 2002 but the alleged criminal acts and actions as stated in the letter continued to occur and take place after the 1^st of July 2002 and continued until Judge Erasmus allegedly committed the crime of torturing Simon Prophet for being a suspect in 2003 and since these events occurred after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on the 1^st of July 2002 then the International Criminal Court, here with regard to Simon Prophet's allegations, does have jurisdiction.

12. Who can be prosecuted before the ICC?
The ICC prosecutes individuals, not groups or States. Any individual who is alleged to have committed crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC may be brought before the ICC. In fact, the Office of the Prosecutor’s prosecutorial policy is to focus on those who, having regard to the evidence gathered, bear the greatest responsibility for the crimes, and does not take into account any official position that may be held by the alleged perpetrators.

...The ICC prosecutes individuals

Paragraph 79. The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are “individuals” and are being accused of having committed the acts of torturing Simon Prophet so again here it is clear with regard to Simon Prophet's allegations, the International Criminal Court does have jurisdiction.

...does not take into account any official position that may be held by the alleged perpetrators.

Paragraph 80. Being the National Director of Public Prosecutions or being a Judge of the High Court does not protect the National Director of Public Prosecutions nor Judge Erasmus from prosecution for the crimes of which they are being accused so again here the status of those being accused has no influence to deprive the International Criminal Court from having here jurisdiction.

Paragraph 81. The higher the status of those being accused then the more urgent it becomes for the matter to be investigated.

14. If those who bear the greatest responsibility hold high political or military office, are
they not exempt from prosecution? Can they not be granted immunity or amnesty?
No one is exempt from prosecution because of his or her current functions or because of the position he or she held at the time the crimes concerned were committed.
Acting as a Head of State or Government, minister or parliamentarian does not exempt anyone from criminal responsibility before the ICC. In some circumstances, a person in a position of authority may even be held responsible for crimes committed by those acting under his or her command or orders. Likewise, amnesty cannot be used as a defence before the ICC. As such, it cannot bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction.

...No one is exempt from prosecution

Paragraph 82. Being the National Director of Public Prosecutions or being a Judge of the High Court does not protect the National Director of Public Prosecutions nor Judge Erasmus from being prosecuted for the crimes of which they are being accused when it can be shown that these alleged crimes have, beyond a reasonable doubt, been shown and proven to have been committed.

15. If the ICC issues an arrest warrant against a current or former head of state, is it for
political reasons? No. The ICC is a judicial institution with an exclusively judicial mandate. It is not subject to political control. As an independent court, its decisions are based on legal criteria and rendered by impartial judges in accordance with the provisions of its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, and other legal texts governing the work of the Court.

...decisions are based on legal criteria...

Paragraph 83. The legal criteria in Simon Prophet's case is clearly mapped out in the Rome Statute that defines “Torture” as a crime against humanity.

Part 2 Article 5(b) of the Rome Statute; crimes against humanity:

Part 2 Article 7(1)(f) torture.

Part 2 Article (7)(2)(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused.”

Paragraph 84. So here we have the legal criteria in black and white and hence the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are being accused of having committed the acts of torturing Simon Prophet.

16. There are allegations that the ICC is only targeting African countries. Is that true?
No. The ICC is concerned with countries that have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction and these are in all continents. African countries made great contributions to the establishment of the Court and influenced the decision to have an independent Office of the Prosecutor. In 1997, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was very active in supporting the proposed Court and its declaration on the matter was endorsed in February 1998, by the participants of the African Conference meeting in Dakar, Senegal, through the “Declaration on the Establishment of the International Criminal Court”. At the Rome Conference itself, the most meaningful declarations about the Court were made by Africans. Without African support the Rome Statute might never have been adopted. In fact, Africa is the most heavily represented region in the Court’s membership. The trust and support comes not only from the governments, but also from civil society organisations. The Court has also benefited from the professional experience of Africans and a number of Africans occupy high-level positions in all organs of the Court. The majority of ICC investigations were opened at the request of or after consultation with African governments. Other investigations were opened following a referral by the United Nations Security Council, where African governments are also represented. Finally, in addition to its formal investigations, the Court’s Office of the Prosecutor is conducting
preliminary examinations in a number of countries across four continents.

Paragraph 85. As a South African citizen, Simon Prophet is embarrassed to have to remind the International Criminal Court that the Party State of the Republic of South African revealed its true colours by openly and unashamedly demonstrating its disregard for International Law when, in contempt of an order from the International Criminal Court, the Party State of the Republic of South Africa deliberately failed to arrest visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir whom the International Criminal Court had convicted for crimes of genocide and for whom there was a warrant out for his arrest.

Paragraph 86. There was talk of reporting the matter to the General Assembly but that was abandoned and fell by the wayside.

Paragraph 87. When charges of torture are brought to bear on the same duplicitous Party State of the Republic of South Africa then what action are we to witness by the International Criminal Court who has already been hornswoggled by the same Party State of the Republic of South Africa?

Paragraph 88. Can the same Party State of the Republic of South Africa again assume indemnity?

Paragraph 89. Simon Prophet is concerned that this is exactly the opinion of the authorities of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa.

Paragraph 90. Simon Prophet suspects that disregard to the Rome Statute has contributed to there having been no meaningful effort within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa to fairly look at Simon Prophet's allegations.

Paragraph 91. The Party State of the Republic of South Africa has casually brushed aside Simon Prophet's allegations with a couldn't care less attitude.

Paragraph 92. The Party State of the Republic of South Africa has acted without fear knowing that Simon Prophet is small fry and being destitute and alone can do little.

Paragraph 93. It would appear that the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is confident that the International Criminal Court is ineffective as history, for the Party State of the Republic of South Africa, in at least one instant, has confirmed.

Paragraph 94. Simon Prophet's submissions have been submitted.

Paragraph 95. The International Criminal Court can let this slide so that the Party State of the Republic of South Africa can brag that it is off the hook and in the clear and need worry not about Simon Prophet's allegations of torture.

Paragraph 96. Alternatively, the International Criminal Court can take a serious look at Simon Prophet's allegations and follow the proper procedure to establish on face value to what extend Simon Prophet’s allegations have merit.

Paragraph 97. Is there any truth in the allegation that Simon Prophet has been tortured and even when the allegations can be confirmed, then, is Simon Prophet just wasting his time and should he rather simply resign himself to the fact that he has been tortured and adopt the stance that, because he is a nobody, there is nothing he can do about it?

Paragraph 98. It is Simon Prophet's understanding that to punish a man “for an act he is suspected of having committed” is an act of torture as defined by international law.

Paragraph 99. Simon Prophet is convinced about what the law dictates and his trust lies in the rightfulness of the International Criminal Court that something is going to be done about his having been tortured after having been punished for an act he was suspected of having committed.

Paragraph 100. Simon Prophet is optimistic that the people who have so allegedly tortured him are going to be brought to book.

Paragraph 101. Simon Prophet is hoping that a clear message will be broadcast far and wide that for those Party States who ever may intend to engage torture let them be well forewarned that every form of torture as explained and so identified in the law books is a crime against humanity and beware because such acts of torture when exposed will not go unpunished.

19. How are the judges elected?
The judges are persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices. All have extensive experience relevant to the Court’s judicial activity. The judges are elected by the Assembly of States Parties on the basis of their established competence in criminal law and procedure and in relevant areas of international law such as international humanitarian law and the law of human rights. They have extensive expertise on specific issues, such as violence against women or children.
The election of the judges takes into account the need for the representation of the principal legal systems of the world, a fair representation of men and women, and equitable geographical distribution. The judges ensure the fairness of proceedings and the proper administration of justice.

...competence in criminal law and procedure

Paragraph 102. The International Criminal Court Judges then will be well acquainted with the right to silence and the right for the accused not to be tortured by the state to secure confessions.

Paragraph 103. The National Director of Public Prosecutions put Simon Prophet into a supposed to be civil trial which Simon Prophet refers to as the “Erasmus Torture Chamber” and threatened Simon Prophet with harm and allegedly tortured Simon Prophet to submit answering affidavits to the charges that he was facing in his criminal trials.

Paragraph 104. It is a fact written down in black and white for all to read in the “Torture Letter” that Simon Prophet was threatened and now it needs to be determined if that threat in the circumstances, as it was delivered, represents torture.

Paragraph 105. The National Director of Public Prosecutions then took the findings from what Simon Prophet describes as the “Erasmus Torture Chamber” and submitted these allegedly unlawful conclusions into Simon Prophet's criminal trial as the supposed to be evidence that Simon Prophet was a criminal.

Paragraph 106. We must ask ourselves; could or would the International Criminal Court Judges engage in a similar way or the same way against those whom are being accused by Simon Prophet or would the International Criminal Court Judges comply with standard criminal law?

...the law of human rights..

Paragraph 107. The International Criminal Court Judges then will be well acquainted with the right to presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial and will agree that guilt must be and can only be established and determined as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt according to what criminal law dictates and according to what is demanded also by the Rome Statute.

Paragraph 108. During the proceedings of Simon Prophet's criminal trial and before Simon Prophet had been acquitted of the criminal allegations in that criminal trial, Judge Erasmus ignored that Simon Prophet was in the midst of a criminal trial dealing with the identical allegations against Simon Prophet and Judge Erasmus ignored the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt and instead decided to unlawfully use a balance of probabilities to condemn Simon Prophet as being a drug dealing criminal.

Paragraph 109. Judge Erasmus has already admitted the “balance of probabilities” line in his own Judgement which, perhaps, we may consider to be a confession of wrong doing.

Paragraph 110. Judge Erasmus then engaged what is defined by law as a crime of torture and punished Simon Prophet on the grounds of a suspicion because at that point in time Simon Prophet was a suspect.

Paragraph 111. It was not until some 2 years later in 2005 when Simon Prophet was acquitted of committing the criminal allegations that he no longer was deemed to be a suspect.

Paragraph 112. Suspicion may well exist on a scale from very strong to strong to not so strong to weak to very weak but suspicion always is suspicion. Suspicion cannot transcend beyond suspicion and always remains suspicion unless the matter can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not suspicion and only then does a claim become a fact whereby the accused can be convicted and must face sentencing and punishment.

Paragraph 113. A balance of probabilities is conjecture and by it's very nature it is unable to represent proof beyond a reasonable doubt or for that matter any form of practical proof and we should call a spade a spade and refrain from verbal semantics.

Paragraph 114. It is forbidden by established criminal law to so flimsily convict a suspect on conjecture and this is not open to debate.

Paragraph 115. Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1):

20. What is the role of the Pre-Trial Chambers?
The Pre-Trial Chambers, each of which is composed of either one or three judges, resolve all issues which arise before the trial phase begins. Their role is essentially to supervise how the Office of the Prosecutor carries out its investigatory and prosecutorial activities, to guarantee the rights of suspects, victims and witnesses during the investigatory phase, and to ensure the integrity of the proceedings. The Pre-Trial Chambers then decide whether or not to issue warrants of arrest or summons to appear at the Office of
the Prosecutor’s request and whether or not to confirm the charges against a person suspected of a crime. They may also decide on the admissibility of situations and cases and on the participation of victims at the pre-trial stage.

...ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

Paragraph 116. As having been the victim of alleged unfair treatment, civil right violations and criminal attacks while he was a suspected criminal and while he was under the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Simon Prophet knows what it is to have to have endured the denial of basic human right laws and being subjected to torment such as he was and consequently Simon Prophet is in full agreement that the accused must have all the rights as stipulated by law.

Paragraph 117. So the Rome Statute makes provision for these considerations but the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus never bothered themselves with these provisions and the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus embarked in an attack against Simon Prophet who was made to suffer unlawfully under the pretence that the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus were fighting crime and somehow were permitted to deviated away from established criminal law procedure.

21. What is the role of the Trial Chambers? Once an arrest warrant is issued, the alleged perpetrator arrested and the charges confirmed by a Pre-Trial Chamber, the Presidency constitutes a Trial Chamber composed of three judges to try the case. A Trial Chamber’s primary function is to ensure that trials are fair and expeditious and are conducted
with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of the victims and the witnesses. It also rules on the participation of victims at the trial stage.
The Trial Chamber determines whether an accused is innocent or guilty of the charges and, if he or she is found guilty, may impose a sentence of imprisonment for a specified number of years not exceeding a maximum of thirty years or life imprisonment. Financial penalties may also be imposed. A Trial Chamber may thus order a convicted person to make reparations for the harm suffered by the victims, including compensation, restitution or rehabilitation.

...ensure that trials are fair and expeditious and are conducted
with full respect for the rights of the accused...

Paragraph 118. To ensure a fair trial is all in keeping with law but when Simon Prophet had been accused of criminal conduct then the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus ignored the basic principals of these laws and Simon Prophet is now accusing these people of having committed the acts of torturing Simon Prophet.

23. What does the Office of the Prosecutor do?
The Office of the Prosecutor is an independent organ of the Court. Its mandate is to receive and analyse information on situations or alleged crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC, to analyse situations referred to it in order to determine whether there is a reasonable basis to initiate an investigation into a crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or the crime of aggression, and to bring the perpetrators of these crimes before the Court.

In order to fulfil its mandate, the Office of the Prosecutor is composed of three divisions: (i) the Investigation Division, which is responsible for conducting investigations (including gathering and examining evidence, questioning persons under investigation as well as victims and witnesses). In this respect, for the purpose of establishing the truth, the Statute requires the Office of the Prosecutor to investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally. (ii) The Prosecution Division has a role in the investigative process, but its principal responsibility is litigating cases before the various Chambers of the Court. (iii) The Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division, which, with the support of the Investigation Division, assesses information received and situations referred to the
Court, analyses situations and cases to determine their admissibility and helps secure the cooperation required by the Office of the Prosecutor in order to fulfil its mandate.

...crimes against humanity,

Paragraph 119. Simon Prophet claims to have conclusive evidence that the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus have committed the crimes of torture.

Paragraph 120. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that torture does fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and Simon Prophet is certain that the Judges of the International Criminal Court will agree.

Paragraph 121. All that remains is to put the facts together to show what actually has happened to Simon Prophet as he is claiming.

25. Which crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC?
The mandate of the Court is to try individuals (rather than States), and to hold such persons accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, when the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the latter are fulfilled.

...crimes against humanity

Paragraph 122. Simon Prophet has allegedly been tortured by the National Director of Public Prosecutions and also by Judge Erasmus of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa but according to Simon Prophet these are not allegations.

Paragraph 123. According to Simon Prophet there can be no doubt that he has been tortured and has been a victim of crimes against humanity and according to Simon Prophet this is an indisputable fact.

27. What are crimes against humanity?
“Crimes against humanity” include any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
• murder;
• extermination;
• enslavement;
• deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• imprisonment;
• torture;
• rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization,
or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
• persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural,
religious or gender grounds;
• enforced disappearance of persons;
• the crime of apartheid;
• other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or
serious bodily or mental injury.

• torture;

Paragraph 124. Simon Prophet has allegedly been tortured by both the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and by Judge Erasmus and the supporting facts of this are out in the open for anyone who takes the trouble to look.

34. Can the Prosecutor decide on his own initiative to open an investigation?
Yes, if the Office of the Prosecutor receives reliable information about crimes involving nationals of a State Party or of a State which has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC, or about crimes committed in the territory of such a State, and concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation. Such information can be provided by individuals, intergovernmental or non-governmental organisations, or any other reliable sources. The Prosecution must, however, obtain permission from the Pre-Trial Chamber judges before initiating an investigation under such circumstances.

...Such information can be provided by individuals

Paragraph 125. Simon Prophet is an individual and he has reliable and undeniable information about how he has been tortured. The allegations that he has presented against his torturers comes with evidence and facts that are indefensible for the accused.

35. What happens when a situation is referred to the ICC for investigation?
The Prosecutor determines whether, in his or her opinion, the Court has jurisdiction with respect to the alleged crimes. Following a thorough analysis of the available information, the Prosecution decides whether there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation. Thus, it must establish whether the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes may have been committed and, if so, whether they were committed after 1 July 2002. The Prosecution must also ascertain whether any national authorities are conducting a genuine investigation or trial of the alleged perpetrators of
the crimes. Lastly, it must notify the States Parties and other States which may have jurisdiction of its intention to initiate an investigation.

...whether they were committed after 1 July 2002

Paragraph 126. Yes. The alleged crimes of torture which are included under crimes against humanity, such as forcing information from an accused while he is a suspect having the right to silence, have been committed against Simon Prophet after the 1^st of July in 2002 and then an additional and different kind of torture of being punished for being a suspected criminal, was committed against Simon Prophet in 2003.

Paragraph 127. The nature of what these alleged crimes are has consequently been able to prolong and maintain the torturing to continue indefinitely unless something is done to put an end to the torturing.

Paragraph 128. Simon Prophet is experiencing the torture in the current moment and it is now up to the International Criminal Court to bring the torturing to an end.

36. How is an investigation conducted?
The Office of the Prosecutor sends its investigators to collect evidence in areas where crimes are alleged to have been committed. The investigators must be careful not to create any risk to the victims and witnesses. The Office of the Prosecutor also requests the cooperation and assistance of States and international organisations. The investigators look for evidence of a suspects guilt or innocence.

The investigators look for evidence of a suspects guilt

Paragraph 129. Simon Prophet has supplied all the evidence to prove guilt of the perpetrators.

Paragraph 130. Everything is out in the open to confirm the evidence regarding the dates and what took place which is revealed on the internet and can all be confirmed by consulting court records.

Paragraph 131. Nothing is being hidden and it's all out in the open. All it requires is to see the allegations for what they are and Simon Prophet's allegations are accurate and can also all be confirmed by looking at the laws that exist.

37. Will the ICC prosecute all persons suspected of committing the most serious crimes?
No. The Court will not be able to bring to justice every person suspected of committing crimes of concern to the international community. The prosecutorial policy of the Office of the Prosecutor is to focus its investigations and prosecutions on those who, having regard to the evidence gathered, bear the greatest responsibility for such crimes.

bear the greatest responsibility for such crimes.

Paragraph 132. Simon Prophet understands this and while he makes mention that a lot of people are complicit in his having been tortured, Simon Prophet's main charge is against only 3 people; the National Directors of Public Prosecutions being Bulelani Ngcuka and Vusi Pikoli and the third person being Judge Erasmus.

Paragraph 133. These three people played key roles in the alleged torturing of Simon Prophet.

38. Can other courts try the perpetrators that the ICC does not prosecute?
Under the principle of complementarity, national judicial systems retain their responsibility for trying perpetrators of crimes.

Paragraph 134. Simon Prophet has every intention to pursue the principle of complementarity to reclaim his dignity once his allegations of torture are confirmed.

Paragraph 135. To violate someone's dignity does not fall into the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but according to Simon Prophet it should not be allowed that high ranking Judges can call Simon Prophet a drug dealing criminal after Simon Prophet has been acquitted of those same drug dealing criminal charges.

Paragraph 136. For Judges to say that Simon Prophet was acquitted on a technicality and that Simon Prophet is therefore guilty of the crime of which he was accused is an abomination and these Judges should not be allowed to escape such appalling legal treachery.

Paragraph 137. Simon Prophet endured not one criminal trial but two criminal trials from the same arrest which dragged on for more than 4 years and in both criminal trials Simon Prophet was found to be not guilty.

Paragraph 138. Again, it is understood that this is not of concern to the International Criminal Court but as far as Simon Prophet is concerned these civil right abuses of abusing Simon Prophet's dignity by calling Simon Prophet a drug dealing criminal after Simon Prophet's acquittal need to be attended to but first and foremost the allegations of torture must be resolved.

39. Who has the power to issue a warrant of arrest or a summons to appear?
After the initiation of an investigation, only a Pre-Trial Chamber may, at the request of the Prosecution, issue a warrant of arrest or summons to appear if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person concerned has committed a crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction.

...reasonable grounds to believe that the person concerned has committed a crime within the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Paragraph 139. Yes. There is a very strong prima facie case against the accused who are Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli and Judge Erasmus who are being accused of having tortured Simon Prophet and according to the Rome Statute these crimes are within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 140. Simon Prophet says that his allegations are beyond a reasonable doubt and are undeniable and indefensible.

40. What information do the judges need from the Prosecution before they can issue a
warrant of arrest or a summons to appear?
When the Prosecution requests the issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear, it must provide the judges with the following information:
• the name of the person;
• a description of the crimes the person is believed to have committed;
• a concise summary of the facts (the acts alleged to be crimes);
• a summary of the evidence against the person;
• the reasons why the Prosecution believes that it is necessary to arrest the person.

• the reasons why the Prosecution believes that it is necessary to arrest the person.

Paragraph 141. All of the information required for the arrests Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli and Judge Erasmus is there and has been submitted by Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 142. The alleged crimes being put forward by Simon Prophet cannot be permitted to go unpunished or unattended to because for such to happen will be to send out a message to the world that crimes against humanity like the crime of torture can be committed without reprimand from the International Criminal Court and it will also mean that the Rome Statute is unwilling or unable and ineffective to fulfil its obligations to the world.

Paragraph 143. Crimes against humanity like torture cannot under any circumstances be tolerated and permitted and there exist absolutely no grounds anywhere to ever allow Party States to violate fundamental laws that prohibit torture.

Paragraph 144. When those Party States pretend that such crimes have not been committed when there exists plenty of evidence that they have been committed then the International Criminal Court must intervene.

Paragraph 145. Party States must not be allowed to think that they can engage ruthless acts of torture without consequences.

Paragraph 146. The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have used Simon Prophet to set up, enforce and applaud unlawful sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998.

Paragraph 147. Setting up such a precedent now gives permission to the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and gives permission to any Judge to use uncontested unsubstantiated hearsay allegations against any innocent people and to unlawfully punish law abiding citizens by arbitrary depriving them of all of their property without compensation and also to arbitrary deprive them of their businesses without compensation.

Paragraph 148. This opens and creates an unlawful legal channel that allows the African National Congress government or any government or any Party State to unlawfully enrich itself through ill gotten gains and no Party State may be permitted to engage acts of torture to get want it wants.

41. What reasons may justify the issuing of a warrant of arrest?
The judges will issue a warrant of arrest if it appears necessary to ensure that the person will actually appear at trial, that he or she will not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the Court’s proceedings, or to prevent the person from continuing to commit crimes.

to prevent the person from continuing to commit crimes.

Paragraph 149. A precedent needs to be set so that what has been done to Simon Prophet will never be allowed to happen to anyone in the future again and again and again on a continuous and an ongoing basis which is what has been and still is the intention of the National Directors of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 150. The National Directors of Public Prosecutions have used Simon Prophet to set up, enforce and applaud unlawful sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 that is giving permission to the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and gives permission to any Judge to use uncontested unsubstantiated hearsay allegations against any innocent people and to unlawfully punish law abiding citizens by arbitrary depriving them of all of their property without compensation and also to arbitrary deprive them of their businesses without compensation and thereby opening an unlawful legal channel that allows the African National Congress government or any government to unlawfully enrich itself through ill gotten gains.

Paragraph 151. As long as the allegations of Simon Prophet are not attended to then the courts in the Party State of the Republic of South Africa and any Party State can ignore the right to silence, the right to presumption of innocence, the right to fair trial, the right not to be tortured and the right not to be arbitrary deprived of property without compensation.

Paragraph 152. As it is now the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is promulgating laws to allow for deprivation of property without compensation which is forbidden by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Paragraph 153. The intention and the urgent wish of the African National Congress government of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is to rewrite Section 25 of the South African Constitution and this new law which is intended to allow and permit deprivation of property without compensation is sitting on President Cyril Ramaphosa's desk and is currently waiting for his signature.

Paragraph 154. Again such deviations from established law is not the concern of the International Criminal Court but such a seemingly unlawful atmosphere does prevail which could confirm that torture also is law that more than likely can in the future and has in the past not be taken seriously.

Paragraph 155. According to what is written in law, Simon Prophet has been allegedly tortured by being punished for having been a suspect for a crime that doesn't even exist in real life.

Paragraph 156. The punishment was to allegedly unlawfully and allegedly arbitrary deprive Simon Prophet of all his properties and his business without compensation which is currently against the law both in South Africa and is also against the law in the International community.

42. What happens after a warrant of arrest is issued?
The Registrar transmits requests for cooperation seeking the arrest and surrender of the suspect to the relevant State or to other States, depending on the decision of the judges in each case. Once the person is arrested and the Court is so informed, the Court ensures that the person receives a copy of the warrant of arrest in a language which he or she fully understands and speaks.

Paragraph 157. By now, the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus know exactly what they have done and are just relying on a possibility that the Prosecutor is not going to open an investigation or prosecute them and then what the perpetrators have done will not be brought before the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 158. This does not say much about the perceived stature of the International Criminal Court as far as the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is concerned.

Paragraph 159. The world already knows that the Party State of the Republic of South Africa can give the middle finger to the International Criminal Court and get away with having done that as has been witnessed by the world with regard to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Paragraph 160. Simon Prophet has been allegedly tortured and the facts are out in the open and are obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to look.

Paragraph 161. It may only be speculation but it seems unlikely, that before a competent court, the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus will be able to defend themselves against the allegations.

Paragraph 162. In all probability before a competent court one can make a fair guess that the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are going to be convicted and if it is proven that they are guilty then so should they be convicted.

Paragraph 163. Crimes of this nature should not be allowed to go unpunished.

Paragraph 164. Judge Erasmus, in his defence reply to the Judicial Conduct Committee, made a statement to the effect that Simon Prophet's allegations stem from what happened 20 years ago and somehow therefore Simon Prophet's allegations have no merit.

Paragraph 165. To say that these things happened to Simon Prophet more than 20 years ago is not an excuse or a valid claim to innocence.

Paragraph 166. Crimes against humanity like torture do not come with a statute of limitations and Judge Erasmus has no excuse not to have known better but, from his reaction, in his mind, he is confident that the International Criminal Court is not going to intervene.

Paragraph 167. Let's hope for Simon Prophet's sake and for the sake of law that this matter is duly investigated and as should happen be brought to the attention of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 168. Let's hope for the sake of billions of people throughout the world that the International Criminal Court will take a stand against any Party State that dares to torture innocent law abiding citizens.

43. Does the ICC have the power to arrest suspects? The Court does not have its own police force. Accordingly, it relies on State co-operation, which is essential to the arrest and surrender of suspects.

relies on State co-operation,

Paragraph 169. Do not be surprised if the Party State of the Republic of South Africa does not co-operate.

Paragraph 170. The Party State of the Republic of South Africa has already shown its disregard to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court when it has attempted to disengage from the Rome Statute not to have to arrest Putin when he was intending to visit South Africa during the BRIKS Summit.

47. Are detainees deemed to have been convicted by virtue of their transfer to the Court?
No. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty before the Court. The Prosecution must prove the guilt of the suspect and a Trial Chamber will convict someone only if it is satisfied that the charges have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Paragraph 171. The National Director of Public Prosecutions sought out ways to punish Simon Prophet during the proceedings of Simon Prophet's criminal trials.

Paragraph 172. Judge Erasmus did not presume Simon Prophet's innocence during the proceedings of Simon Prophet's criminal trials.

Paragraph 173. Judge Erasmus did not prove Simon Prophet's criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Paragraph 174. Judge Erasmus punished Simon Prophet for being a suspect in the midst of Simon Prophet's criminal trial by punishing Simon Prophet for an act that Simon Prophet was suspected of having committed.

Paragraph 175. Judge Erasmus deprived Simon Prophet of Simon Prophet's home and Simon Prophet's property and Simon Prophet's business in a manner that can only be described as arbitrary without compensation and the reason for having done so was because the National Director of Public Prosecutions accused Simon Prophet of committing a drug crime.

Paragraph 176. The criminal trial that followed later determined Simon Prophet's innocence and proof was presented from a reliable witness with first hand knowledge that the alleged crime has never existed in real life.

Paragraph 177. Simon Prophet's allegations fall under crimes against humanity which calls to be brought to the immediate attention of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 178. Simon Prophet's charges against the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus are real and Simon Prophet has been the victim of these alleged crimes and Simon Prophet has suffered to a great extent and still today is suffering to the full extent.

Paragraph 179. Apart from the pain and suffering that Simon Prophet has been forced to endure, Simon Prophet is still being forced to endure the same suffering of then also now in the current moment.

Paragraph 180. Simon Prophet has spent millions of rands defending his dignity and trying to recover his properties that the National Director of Public Prosecutions sold for less than 14 thousand Euros.

Paragraph 181. Every authority in the Party State of the Republic of South Africa is denying Simon Prophet's allegations but anyone who is trained in law and even anyone who is not trained in law but takes the trouble to examine the allegations is going to agree with Simon Prophet that these crimes being alleged by Simon Prophet do fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

48. What rights do suspects have?
Suspects are presumed innocent. They are present in the courtroom during the trial, and they have a right to a public, fair and impartial hearing of their case. To this end, a series of guarantees are set out
in the Court’s legal documents, including the following rights, to mention but a few:
• to be defended by the counsel (lawyer) of their choice, present evidence and witnesses
of their own and to use a language which they fully understand and speak;
• to be informed in detail of the charges in a language which they fully understand and
speak;
• to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence and to
communicate freely and in confidence with counsel;
• to be tried without undue delay;
• not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and to remain silent, without such
silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence;
• to have the Prosecution disclose to the defence evidence in its possession or control which it believes shows or tends to show the innocence of the accused, or to mitigate the guilt of the accused, or which may affect the credibility of the Prosecution’s evidence.

Suspects are presumed innocent

Paragraph 182. During Simon Prophet's criminal trials, Judge Erasmus did not presume Simon Prophet's innocence and ignoring the International law of presumption of innocence and laws in the Rome Statute, Judge Erasmus declared that Simon Prophet was guilty of the crimes he was being accused of in the criminal trials and Judge Erasmus did that before those criminal trials had been resolved and Judge Erasmus did that before Simon Prophet had been acquitted.

Paragraph 183. In order to escape the legal problems and complications after Simon Prophet had been acquitted, the National Director of Public Prosecutions claimed that Simon Prophet had been acquitted on a technicality and that therefore Simon Prophet was guilty and deserved to be punished.

Paragraph 184. How can someone who is trained in law be permitted to put forward such atrocious suggestions and worse than that how can Supreme Court of Appeal Judges and Constitutional Court Judges go along to tolerate and embrace such level of disregard for the law?

Paragraph 185. Such legal disgrace is of no concern to the International Criminal Court but such unholy behaviour does lend credibility to Simon Prophet's allegations of torture because disrespect of any law can lead to disrespect of every law.

Paragraph 186. Simon Prophet has no criminal record.

Paragraph 187. The National Director of Public Prosecutions has said that Simon Prophet is a criminal after Simon Prophet has been acquitted?

Paragraph 188. The right to dignity is an absolute law and under no circumstances may this law be derogated and there must be an accounting for people in government and in the courts who think they can deviate away and evade such laws as the right to dignity.

Paragraph 189. Again, while these observations do not fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court it is worthy of taking note when considering whether or not such people in high positions could possibly engage an act of torture when they demonstrate little qualm in disregarding an innocent man's right to dignity.

Paragraph 190. When we know that someone has broken one law then we must take note and ask what other crime is this person willing to engage?

Paragraph 191. Where lies the limit? Which laws will be upheld? Which laws will be ignored?

Paragraph 192. Just look at the number of civil right laws that the National Director of Public Prosecutions Party State of the Republic of South Africa and Judge Erasmus of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa are alleged to have engaged against Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 193. Simon Prophet's count of civil right violations runs into double digits.

not to be compelled to testify

Paragraph 194. During Simon Prophet's criminal trial the National Director of Public Prosecutions did not respect the law of the right to silence and proceeded to terrorize Simon Prophet and force Simon Prophet through the absolute real fear of loosing everything to submit answering affidavits relating to allegations in the criminal trials.

Paragraph 195. Simon Prophet was being allegedly unlawfully being forced to submit the affidavits into what Simon Prophet describes as the “Erasmus Torture Chamber” but which according to the courts is a civil matter in the High Court of Cape Town (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division) case number 5926/01.

Paragraph 196. As far as Simon Prophet is concerned there is nothing civil about being tortured.

Paragraph 197. In 2003 the National Director of Public Prosecutions sold Simon Prophet's home, 54 Balfour Street, as an instrumentality of a crime.

Paragraph 198. In 2005 Simon Prophet was acquitted of all criminal accusations and the criminal trial also revealed that in fact no crime had been committed by anyone at 54 Balfour Street.

Paragraph 199. 54 Balfour Street is not a criminal asset nor has it ever been.

Paragraph 200. It is a confirmed lie to refer to 54 Balfour as an instrumentality of a crime.

Paragraph 201. 54 Balfour Street is an innocent non criminal thing and a bystander to no crime having been committed.

Paragraph 202. The National Director of Public Prosecutions cannot be allowed to refer to a physical location as being an instrumentality of a crime when the alleged crime does not exist nor ever has existed.

Paragraph 203. The crime being alleged by the National Director of Public Prosecutions has never existed outside of the fictitious stories being put forward by liars who had been employed by and were working for the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 204. When Simon Prophet brought criminal charges of perjury against Casper Venter, the principle alleged liar who was being employed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions, then the South African Police did investigate the allegations.

Paragraph 205. Subsequent to the investigation then the police did bring the matter to the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court but the National Director of Public Prosecutions refused to bring the allegations before a Magistrate.

Paragraph 206. Why not?.This is all documented and out in the open.

Paragraph 207. Again, the issue of 54 Balfour Street being an innocent lawful asset is not of concern to the International Criminal Court because this is out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but when we start adding the number and the variety of unfavourable allegations being put forward by Simon Prophet against the National Director of Public Prosecutions then it does tend to support an opinion that the allegation of torture may be true since there exist so many other allegations, both civil right allegations and criminal allegations all of which on face value seem to be true.

51. What is the role of the Office of Public Counsel for the Defence (OPCD)?
The OPCD promotes, represents and researches the rights of the defence, raises the profile of substantive defence issues, and endeavours to achieve equality of arms for the defence at all stages of an investigation and trial.
The Office is independent in terms of its substantive functions, but falls within the remit of the Registry solely for administrative purposes.

substantive defence issues

Paragraph 208. It is openly admitted that Judge Erasmus ignored the rule of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and adopted a new variant for determining criminal guilt called a balance of probabilities.

Paragraph 209. In a hypothetical scenario what would Judge Erasmus's reaction be if the International Criminal Court announced that the allegations of torture against Judge Erasmus were going to be determined on a balance of probabilities in the complete absence of witnesses or evidence?

Paragraph 210. To punish Simon Prophet, for Judge Erasmus, suspicion, was the over riding criteria to proclaim Simon Prophet's guilt and Judge Erasmus did not require or request oral testimony and hence any cross examination by Simon Prophet was conveniently avoided.

Paragraph 211. Erasmus did not request or require any physical articles to be presented to the court to be examined by Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 213. Erasmus relied on only unsubstantiated pieces of paper and fictitious stories being delivered to Judge Erasmus third hand by Jeremy Gauntlet, the advocate employed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 214. Not a single witness appeared before Judge Erasmus.

Paragraph 215. Does Simon Prophet not have the right to a fair trial?

Paragraph 216. All that took place in this supposed to be civil trial that Simon Prophet refers to as the “Erasmus Torture Chamber” is that Judge Erasmus came to an agreement with the National Director of Public Prosecutions and that probably behind closed doors.

Paragraph 217. Jeremy Gauntlet has never spoken to Simon Prophet and knows nothing about Simon Prophet and Jeremy Gauntlet is not a witness about anything connected to the allegations against Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 218. All that Judge Erasmus had in his court room was that Simon Prophet was being accused of being a suspect.

Paragraph 219. There is no defence against an allegation that accuses you of being a suspect and employing lawyers and advocates would be a waste of time and money as it turned out to be the case in Simon Prophet's ordeals.

Paragraph 220. What more is required to show that the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Judge Erasmus have done wrong and in fair consideration for the welfare of Simon Prophet, these people must be made to face the consequences of their actions?

Paragraph 221. Everything is recorded on Simon Prophet's website; click the link below:

and all the facts are visible to every curious eye.

Paragraph 222. Simon Prophet's allegations are not going to disappear into obscurity.

Paragraph 223. The allegations are here to stay into all eternity or until the allegations are officially confirmed and work will continue and will not stop until the alleged criminals are brought to answer to the allegations.

Paragraph 224. How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?

Paragraph 225. However is the plea it makes no difference to the watching world because the facts are already understood by an applying mind.

Paragraph 226. The matter is now sitting with the Prosecutor to decide and whatever that decision turns out to be it will not go unnoticed by everyone including every Party State.

Paragraph 227. This case concerning Simon Prophet is now in year 24 and is destined to become one of the world's most famous legal battles of all time even if the perpetrators should, God forbid, escape conviction or at least proper investigation by a qualified, diligent and unbiased authority.

Paragraph 228. Is the International Criminal Court going to slide away and side with the people being accused of being torturers or is an investigation due to consider the side of Simon Prophet who is claiming to be the the victim who has been tortured?

Paragraph 229. The proper approach is to consider all of the facts in an unbiased way according to what the law dictates and not according to what is convenient.

Paragraph 230. It may well turn out to be a rough ride for some people but those people have been given every opportunity to do the right thing.

Paragraph 231. This is a matter that is pleading to come to a head and the International Criminal Court is there for the right reasons to ensure that serious crimes like crimes against humanity and like crimes of torture do not go unchecked or unpunished.

Paragraph 232. Party States are bound to comply with the Rome Statute and there can be no exceptions.

Paragraph 233. Every authority in the Party State of the Republic of South Africa has been given every generous opportunity to resolve Simon Prophet's allegations at home in an amicable way but from one and all of these authorities only arrogant denials have been forthcoming.

Paragraph 234. Now let the International Criminal Court as an unbiased court committed to doing right make the final decision as to whether or not Party States are going to be permitted to commit horrendous crimes of torture.

Paragraph 235. Will it help in getting Simon Prophet's case off the ground if an advocate who is familiar with all of what has happened to Simon Prophet submits a communication to the Prosecutor?

Paragraph 236. We have included in the attachment the questionnaire book that was submitted to the South African Human Rights Commission for their consideration.

Paragraph 237. Simon Prophet's request to the South African Human Rights Commission was for Simon Prophet to be able to better understand what about his complaint may not have conformed to the law or where Simon Prophet's assessment of the facts may have been wrong.

Paragraph 238. This was a very simple easy to complete request coming from Simon Prophet and it should have been a breeze and an amusing task for someone in the South African Human Rights Commission to fill in the Yes or No answers.

Paragraph 239. After a long delay of 8 months the book was returned to Simon Prophet unanswered.

Paragraph 240. The pages returned blank only leave everyone to more than suspect that no answers were forthcoming because to answer the questions can only reveal the true facts of what has been done to Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 241. Again this is of no concern to the International Criminal Court but again an atmosphere of disregard for the law only adds credence to Simon Prophet's allegations.

Paragraph 242. There is no way around the questions and filling in the answers it becomes blatantly obvious that Simon Prophet has been ruthlessly tortured.

Paragraph 243. This is the real reason why the South African Human Rights Commission and the Judicial Service Commission did not complete the questionnaire book because doing so would demand a proper investigation as to the legality of what the National Director of Public Prosecutions of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa has been doing to Simon Prophet.

Paragraph 244. A link to the questionnaire book of 54 pages can be found by clicking the link below:

Paragraph 245. Simon Prophet was found to be not guilty but Judge Erasmus of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa has punished Simon Prophet for the same alleged crime of which he has been found to be not guilty?

Paragraph 246. It gets worse than that because this alleged crime of which Simon Prophet has been accused does not exist in real life.

Paragraph 247. Simon Prophet is not associated with a real life crime that has taken place anywhere at any time and no confirmed official record of this alleged crime exists.

Paragraph 248. In the criminal trial the proof that came to light is that it was shown that no crime had happened and these are the facts that can be confirmed.

Paragraph 249. This is of relevance to the International Criminal Court because it goes to prove that Simon Prophet was punished by Judge Erasmus because Simon Prophet was a suspect.

Paragraph 250. All that became apparent in the criminal trial is that Simon Prophet was once upon a time a suspect and the suspicion was dispensed with once Simon Prophet was acquitted.

Paragraph 251. According to law it is a crime of torture to punish a suspect.

Paragraph 252. This does fall in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 253. The alleged crime of which Simon Prophet has been accused is nothing more than a suspicion that has been fabricated with a fictitious story conjured up by a policeman who, it can be shown and proven, has told lies under oath.

Paragraph 254. The Party State of the Republic of South Africa is refusing to bring this suspected perjurer to court for what, to the informed, would be obvious reasons.

Paragraph 255. If the alleged liar is innocent then no harm done but if he is guilty then all hell is going to break out for the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

Paragraph 256. Again not of concern to the International Criminal Court but all the time adding yet more credibility to Simon Prophet's allegations.

Paragraph 257. No one needs to study the law to be able to see that this is wrong.

Paragraph 258. A reasonable man can only agree that what has been done to Simon Prophet is a staggering collection of acts of brutal cruelty.

Paragraph 259. Simon Prophet has allegedly been tortured and, legally speaking, it has been explained in detail why this is described as torture according to existing law.

Paragraph 260. Are the perpetrators of these alleged criminal acts of torture going to get away with what they have done to Simon Prophet?

Paragraph 261. Now it is up to the Prosecutor.

Paragraph 262. This case is already an interesting story to read and as the history further unfolds the world is anxious to see what role will be played by the International Criminal Court .

Paragraph 263. Simon Prophet is an old man and he is being made to suffer, not because he has been lazy all his life but because certain people have engaged criminality and they have wrongly used the law to rob Simon Prophet of all his worldly possessions leaving him destitute with nothing.

Paragraph 264. However, Simon Prophet is not complaining to the International Criminal Court because he has been robbed.

Paragraph 265. Being robbed is not a crime that falls into the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court but torture does fall within the jurisdiction of the International Court and it has been explained in detail how Simon Prophet has been tortured in terms of how torture is determined to be not by Simon Prophet or by the English dictionary but in terms of how torture is defined by the law.

Paragraph 266. Every level minded person knows that what has been done to Simon Prophet is wrong and ten thousand people willingly signed a petition in agreement to that and quite apart from having been tortured, the law in so many ways, with regard to Simon Prophet, has been turned upside down and all of this is easy to show.

Paragraph 267. Simon Prophet says he has been tortured and this has allegedly been done to Simon Prophet but we should stop to ask; who else has suffered the same and who in the future will suffer likewise if the International Criminal Court does not take note and intervene to do something to protect Simon Prophet and by protecting Simon Prophet also to be protecting hundreds of thousands and even maybe into the millions of other people who in the future may have the misfortune to find themselves in the same situation of falling out of favour with high ranking officials who respect not the law?

Paragraph 268. One can say it is suspected but it is also apparent that the alleged crimes that have befallen Simon Prophet have happened in order for the Party State of the Republic of South Africa to set up a legal precedent that allows the same Party Sate to engage unlawful acts of enrichment.

Paragraph 269. Protecting generations of people to come who may have the misfortune to be unlawfully tortured in the same way as Simon Prophet is claiming to have been tortured does fall within the jurisdiction of the International Court.

Paragraph 270. Simon Prophet may have had little for the National Directors of Public Prosecutions to steal but what will a corrupt Party State do with a legal success against Simon Prophet that sets a legal precedent to say that it's OK to torture innocent law abiding citizens by punishing them for things they haven’t done and depriving them of all their things without compensation?

Paragraph 271. A green light being given to acts of torture will certainly be a big advantage and a legal opportunity for bad people with criminal intention to do wrong.

Paragraph 272. Will any or all authorities within Part States be able to act with impunity when it comes to allegations of torture?

Paragraph 273. Is the International Criminal Court going to ignore Simon Prophet's pleadings thereby setting up another precedent allowing any Party State to claim privilege to ignore the laws that prohibit torture?

Paragraph 274. These are valid questions that call to be answered truthfully.

Paragraph 275. A lot is at stake here, not just for Simon Prophet but for the whole world at large and the direction in which torture will flow is now in the hands of the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 276. More than 20 years later, Simon Prophet certainly has demonstrated the resilience that was not expected and it may have come as a shock to Judge Erasmus that a lay person not trained in law such as Simon Prophet could have so easily exposed how badly Judge Erasmus has misunderstood the law and also how badly Judge Erasmus has deviated from the law.

Paragraph 277. Judge Erasmus has made a fool of himself with the undeniable lies, errors and contradictions in his judgement that have been pointed out by Simon Prophet and again this is not of concern to the International Criminal Court but the act of torturing Simon Prophet does fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the errors in the Judge Erasmus Judgement do not stand in favour of Judge Erasmus but only serve to support Simon Prophet's allegations and this is of relevance to the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 278. Judge Erasmus, at the time may not have considered the full impact of all the angles of his alleged unlawful actions but in the current moment he has no excuse and at any time it has been within his power to have come forward to rethink but he has not done any of that and instead when the questions were being put before the Judicial Conduct Committee he was in denial relying on his colleagues to protect him and that is what happened.

Paragraph 279. Judge Erasmus has been protected by his colleagues.

Paragraph 280. There may have been a time in the past where it was not known but by now Judge Erasmus, Bulelani Ngcuka and Vusi Pikoli know that what they have done is wrong.

Paragraph 281. They also know that their status and position has allowed them to act with impunity because they know that their colleagues within the Party State of the Republic of South Africa will protect them.

Paragraph 282. The content of the above paragraph 281 has shown itself to be a pattern and that is what is here being shown to be happening and that is why Simon Prophet is finding no relief within the territory of the Party State of the Republic of South Africa and that is why Simon Prophet is now before the International Criminal Court.

Paragraph 282. A primary purpose of the International Criminal Court exists for just such situations so that when law fails ordinary law abiding citizens who are subjected to barbaric crimes against humanity like ruthless torture in Party States then there is a safety net called the International Criminal Court where remedy can be found.