The Oviedo Convention is useless? not a chance, IT IS A FALSE TO PROTECT KILLING LAWS AND THE PARTIES THAT PROTECT THEM

The statement that the Oviedo Convention does not apply in Italy or is of no use is legally a forgery, therefore those who profess it do not know the subject or want to induce the interlocutor not to demand respect for their rights. here's the proof.
The European Court of Human Rights, Cause in Parrillo c. Italy (Application no. 46470/2011), discussing embryos (a theme of the Convention and Protocols), He has referred several times to the Oviedo Convention, the Italian Government itself did not object to the effectiveness of the Oviedo Convention as a law applied in Italy. https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_20_1.page?contentId=SDU1192478
On the other hand, that the Oviedo Convention applies in Italy is demonstrated by various judgments of the highest courts (Supreme Court, constitutional court, State Council ) by various judges and even by orders of the Ministry of Health, as it is referred to in at least one European Union Directive. At the bottom of this article you will find a list of these acts. It is possible that all these institutions are using the Oviedo Convention inappropriately ?
Obvious what to say that “the Oviedo Convention does not apply in Italy” it is wrong and whoever says it either does not understand anything or is in bad faith, was also a lawyer or jurist.
The Parrillo v. Italy ruling shows that at the level of the European Court of Human Rights (Court CEDU), the violation of the Oviedo Convention can be discussed by asking the state to respect it.
How do you get to the ECHR to cancel certain infamous and murderous laws?
Unfortunately, in order to appeal to the ECHR, it is necessary to first have done all the levels of judgment within the country. So getting there isn't easy at all, it takes many years to wait for the various sentences, good lawyers costing tens of thousands of euros, costanza, resilience and determination. In practice a martyrdom.
Parrillo succeeded, but instead yet they have failed (and it is not even that we are trying) those who oppose the removal of illegal organs, like those who oppose illegally imposed vaccines. Experimental treatments, if imposed, are even more seriously illegal, and they are totally forbidden on healthy minors.
In short it is obvious that once the state, with the stamp of the President of the Republic, has implemented a law that is illegal because it violates human rights (Rights such as those written in the Oviedo Convention), to enforce the human right must first request it, in all competent judicial offices, And then, consistently, DETERMINATION, sufficient strength etc., with the years , get to the Court ECHR. Therefore it is done with great difficulty .
It is therefore not surprising that laws on compulsory vaccination, unconstitutional because in violation of the Oviedo Convention, have not yet reached the ECHR. But justifying the same laws as still in force for the fact that the ECHR has not yet been reached is infamous or ignorant.
Saying that the Oviedo Convention does not work because it is not respected even in the states that have ratified it is a way to confuse the interlocutor and convince him not to ask for the rights provided, because it is obvious that only after a right has been violated, or the rights of the Oviedo Convention have been violated, only then can the process of claiming that takes years begin. Instead, one wonders why this has never been done before given that the ratification of the Oviedo Convention is by 2001.
The first thing I did on the matter was to lodge an appeal for violation of the Oviedo Convention to the Constitutional Court in 2017, against the infamous Lorenzin law, but as is known, they illegally expelled us from the proceedings even though we were entitled to it under the Framework Convention on National Minorities, because I represented the legally recognized Venetian national minority.
So why are there those who say that the Oviedo Convention does not apply or even worsens human rights? Simple: to hide the misdeeds of the parties that voted for certain murderous laws that actually carry out crimes against humanity . Let's see what more we talk.
The Oviedo Convention recognizes in Article 5 that the will of the person cannot be overridden in the therapeutic choice, under no circumstances: the individual always has the right to give consent to any intervention in the health field, and can also withdraw it after giving it. Furthermore, consent must be “free” and “informed" , therefore, if the patient is not provided with information on the risks of “treatment” here is that consent is extorted, illegal, It constitutes a constituent element of a crime.
There are exceptions to this setting, Article 2 of the Convention states that there is a “Primacy of the human being” So “The interest and the good of the human being must prevail over the sole interest of society or science.” .
So you cannot physically bully the person or hide the information from him even for the collective good, so you can't, For example, to impose a microchip on everyone due to the fact that “it makes us all safer”, or impose transplant and transplants (I go back after) without consent.
But even when prescribing a painkiller or a vaccine should not hide the risks, even death, that these drugs have, and instead this just isn't done, the user is never warned of the risk of serious damage or death. Can you imagine what the pharmaceutical companies' business will do when the Oviedo Convention is respected? I'll tell you, he will go to some other corrupt country to have anti-human laws made.
Yet, THE “informed consent” of the Oviedo Convention has substantially no exceptions (I go back after), while, on the other hand, Article 32 of the Constitution or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have respect for the law. So just a law that bypasses the protection.
The article 32 Cost, however, requires respect for human rights, and therefore the Oviedo Convention acts as a wall. It follows what to say that the Oviedo Convention “weakens” human rights, not only is it a contradiction, but it is false, and whoever says it is ignorant or in bad faith and says it to mislead the interlocutor. So much so that the article 27 of the Convention itself prohibits its use to undermine rights otherwise recognized by law.
Whatever you say the Oviedo Convention, even if it was the most wrong, art. 27 “More extensive protection”, states that “None of the provisions of this Convention shall be construed as limiting or prejudicing the right of each Party to grant more extensive protection with respect to the applications of biology and medicine than those provided by this Convention.”. So the Oviedo Convention definitely cannot undermine the rights of other laws.
On the subject of organ donation or the removal of tissues or organs, Article 19 of the Oviedo Convention prohibits any intervention without consent, and requires that such consent “It must be given expressly and specifically, either in writing or before an official body.”.
The current law on harvesting was reformed by the Renzi government which withdrew prior consent, and today we are all donors without being able to give consent. In Italy, therefore, the law on organ transplantation is illegal on this point, and it applies a principle rejected by England, Holland and others. In short, we are the organ warehouse for the entire continent, as befits a country under usury banking. The explant law does not require any written consent in front of an official body so it is contrary to the Oviedo Convention, it is inhuman in the sense of contrary to human rights.
Someone says, dishonestly, that the Oviedo Convention does not apply due to Article 26.
This is false, because its article 26 makes very theoretical and abstract exceptions but in the second paragraph it totally limits them and establishes that “the restrictions [ ..] They can not be placed on Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 e 21” so they practically never apply, or better, hardly find a case of lawful exception, the only case in which an exception could be made, perhaps, is that of an epidemic so devastating as to kill more than 50% of the population, certainly not for a case of death.
So whoever says that the Oviedo Convention can undermine human rights, either he is ignorant or he is in bad faith. For what purpose? To protect from the exposure those parties who voted or preserved, once in office, of infamous laws, inhumane, who carry out crimes against humanity.
But there is more and more. He will tell soon.
In the meantime, I ask you to sign the pre-approval of the "People's Law Proposal" online . We can bring compliance with the Convention into the classrooms of the Regions, it is their duty imposed by Article 117 of the Constitution, making the Oviedo Convention effective and respected in the field of Health is a matter of shared competence of the Region.
We will present the bill in the Regions that will reach the quorum of signatures, we are looking for proposers which can supply all the work, The text of the law, and the electronic platform with which, for the first time in Italy, we collected in the 2019 online signatures under the new EIDAS regulation.
Let's ask, to all, to write to various acquaintances or chat , residents in Veneto, to sign online at the website www.repubblica.info/sottoscrizione.
At the address www.repubblica.info you can find not only the text of the bill “Salute”, but also two other projects named “banks” E “PEC” which we consider equally important for the protection of regional communities from financial predation and the predation of democratic rights. https://repubblica.info/moduli/
There are flyers for those who want to print or send them https://repubblica.info/volantini/
And here are some demonstrations that the Oviedo Convention has been applied for decades in Italy, therefore, however, it has been systematically violated in some areas.
art. 32. Cost ” The Republic protects health as a fundamental right of the individual and as a collective interest , and guarantees free care to the indigent. Nobody can be obliged to a specific health treatment except by law. The law cannot in any case violate the limits imposed by respect for the human person.”
The Italian Constitution Article 32 provides for the law of the community as well as that of the individual, but in respect for human rights, and only the Oviedo Convention (Human rights) says that the rights of the individual are not compressible by society . Without the Oviedo Convention, the vaccination obligation is compatible with the Constitution.
The Oviedo Convention is operative in the Italian legal system , here are some demonstrations.
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2006/17 / EC of 8 February 2006 implementing Directive 2004/23 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for the donation, the procurement and control of human tissues and cells (Text with EEA relevance) – oviedo cites the Convention as a normative reference .
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02006L0017-20121217
State Council of the Special Committee of the Gathering 18 July 2018 – Number 01991/2018 and date 31/07/2018 “Request for opinion on informed consent and advance processing provisions” dice “The European Convention of Bioethics 1997 (C.d. Oviedo), its part, all’art. 5 establishes: “An intervention in the field of health cannot be carried out until after the person concerned has given free and informed consent. This person first of all receives adequate information on the purpose and nature of the intervention and its consequences and risks. The person concerned can, at any time, freely withdraw consent”. http://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/dettaglioAtto?id=65104
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS – GRAND CHAMBER, CAUSE Parrillo c. Italy (Application no. 46470/11) – judgment 27 August 2015 : In this ruling by the Council of Europe, Italian the applicant against the Italian Government, the Oviedo Convention is repeatedly referred to as OPERATING IN ITALY https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_20_1.page?contentId=SDU1192478
ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH 27 June 2001 Extension of the effectiveness of the ordinance 5 March 1997 concerning the prohibition of cloning of human or animal practices. (published in the Official Gazette No.. 166 of the 19 July 2001) PUTS THE OVIEDO CONVENTION AMONG THE SOURCES OF LAW http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_normativa_137_allegato.pdf : THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER SIMILAR ORDERS EVEN AFTER
In the order of the Court of Cagliari of 22 September 2007 , the judge noted that the pre-implantation diagnosis ban was introduced later by an act of secondary legislation, in particular the decree of the Ministry of Health n. 15165 of the 21 July 2004 (in particular the part that provides that “any investigation relating to the health of embryos created in vitro, according to the article 14, comma 5 [of Law. 40 of the 2004], it must be observational). It found this to be in conflict with the principle of legitimacy and with the “Oviedo Convention”of the Council of Europe.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS WHERE THE CONVECTION IS CALLED IN AS A SOURCE OF OVIEDO OPERATIONS