The recent "report" of the Commission of inquiry on Syria by the UN Human Rights Council stands for its bombastic accusations against the Syrian government, but entirely omitted to present material evidence, or evidence corroborating the charges. It is based upon testimony from unidentified, unqualified people. The "investigative" method used is no different than the "cover" provided by the western corporate media wtih "information" that is without confirmation as to its truthfulness, yet repeated to exhaustion nevertheless.
In the preamble to the "report" of the commission headed by the Brazilian, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, (photo) it says that the "the standard of proof has 'reasonable suspicion'" and recognizes that this is "a lower standard of evidence than that used in criminal proceedings."
How were the testimonies collected? Very simple: a public appeal was launched. A UN official says they responded to the call for "organizations and persons interested" in "helping the commission."
So, between the testimony of the alleged "victims" and 223 witnesses' statements that may appear as disinterested declarations, some as agents of the CIA, there are mercenaries and other bums willing to help the White House in its attempt to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria.
None of the statements were checked. The allegation is that it's because they could not enter Syria. But there are other forms of evidence (photos, movies, documents, confrontations, mixed messages, etc.) It was even suggested to put these forward, but certainly not to run the risk of spoiling the pre-established itinerary.
The odd thing is that with millions of Syrians in the streets in all cities, supporting the government (all documented with photos) and more demonstrations outside Syria against foreign interference, that there is not a single statement that says the opposite of whatever the report.wants to prove That is, none of these countless millions could testify.
The storytellers also heard from an entity of exemplary exemption as to the Syrian question: the Arab League. One where the little kings, emirs and sultans - all humble puppets of the U.S., to the point where they yield territory for military bases in the region - they defend their monarchies - known to be super-democratic - against the evil example of the Syrian Arab Republic.
The press, of course, took the more bombastic statement of the report that 256 children were killed by the regime under torture, sexual violence and other rugged practices imaginable for only truly sick minds. But none of these organs deigned to mention the Syrian claims that "citizens, soldiers and policemen are killed in ambushes by gangs of terrorists" and that the allegations against Syria "are manufactured by the media in the service of the Western powers." These were all things that the storyteller saw himself as feeling obliged to reproduce in order to give the "information" the minimum of appearance of impartiality. An effort in vain , by the way.
Pinheiro alleges that "the UN commission did not have government permission to enter Syria," but the correspondence exchanged with the Syrian government, attached to "report," proves exactly the opposite: there was no access prohibition to the country.
The exchange of correspondence shows that the Syrian government says it would be pleased to receive a commission sent by the Human Rights Council. It asks only beforehand that the Commission of Inquiry to Syria allow them to complete their own investigations. On this issue, Paulo Pinheiro is the one who gives the ultimatum in a letter dated November 11, requiring that the committee has access to the country in 15 days, ignoring the Syrian considerations.
Finally, the "report" says that the Syrian government has not responded to a questionnaire submitted by the committee. Here too, the truth is distorted. The Syrian government responded by saying that the questionnaire was partial and it alone revealed the predisposition of the investigators.
The Syrian government says they are not concerned in their questioning about the sabotage that is leading to deaths in Syria (the government says there are more than one thousand killed by terrorists). Of the 26 questions from this questionnaire, only one deals with the actions of terrorists and all others speculate about the alleged Syrian government repression of unarmed demonstrators.
The report in fact actually apes the method already used by the media to demonize the Syrian government and its leader, Bashar Al Assad. As the researcher for Global Research, Julie Levesque, in her report entitled, "Protest in Syria: Who counts the dead?," says the "media reports on the alleged repression by the government of Syria, but does not mention their sources of information." "They," says Levesque, "are almost always 'human rights' groups or 'activists'."
Finally, an excerpt from an interview given to Russia Today TV in which - unlike the report by Paulo Pinheiro, the interviewee has a name and profession: Anhar Kochnev, manager of the travel agency that operates in Syria, among others.
She says: "There is a powerful disinformation underway. On the 1st of April, the media reported about a great event in Damascus. I was in Damascus that day. This event never happened, neither I, nor any of the residents saw it."
"Already on April 16," Anhar testifies, "Reuters news agency" reported that "50,000 opponents of the regime took to the streets of Damascus and were dispersed with tear gas and batons." No one saw. But city dwellers know that this event could not have occurred without the city's noticing. How many officers were needed to disperse it? How is it that no one has seen it except for Reuters?