I. Legal Position
The principal victim referenced in this White Paper, O (hereinafter referred to as “Victim O”), has never, throughout the entire course of this case, undergone any lawful, formal, or comprehensive psychological or mental health diagnosis or standardized psychological testing.
Any judgment, characterization, or assessment of Victim O’s mental or psychological condition made by any individual or institution—whether based on speculation, insinuation, public opinion, behavioral interpretation, so-called “micro-expressions,” or any form of unauthorized observation—possesses no medical or legal validity.
⸻
II. Legal Characterization of Systematic Psychological Suppression
OJWA expressly determines that:
Over an extended period, acts directed against Victim O and Victim O’s family members—including surveillance, intrusion, public stigmatization, group-based psychological suggestion, manipulation of social environments, and the use of psychological or medical discourse for labeling purposes—do not constitute isolated incidents or legitimate academic inquiry, but rather form:
An integral component of collective crimes of infringement.
These acts have been systematically employed to: • Deprive the victim of social credibility and standing • Undermine the credibility of testimony • Construct narratives of “psychological abnormality” to conceal substantive criminal conduct • Impose prolonged psychological pressure and implicit threats upon the victim and family members
⸻
III. Legal Boundaries of Medicine and Psychology
Psychology and medicine do not enjoy any privilege that supersedes human rights or judicial authority.
Any psychologist, medical professional, research institution, or related practitioner who: • Acts without the explicit consent of the victim • Fails to follow lawful assessment procedures • Disregards independent and auditable standards
and nonetheless renders psychological or mental evaluations of Victim O, may be implicated in abuses of medical ethics and unlawful psychological experimentation.
⸻
IV. Criminal Liability and Future Accountability
Victim O and OJWA hereby formally declare that: 1. The aforementioned conduct does not represent individual bias against a single victim, but rather organized, coordinated, and purpose-driven collective acts of infringement. 2. Relevant individuals, institutions, and their collaborators shall, in future judicial proceedings, be regarded as participants in or accomplices to collective crimes of infringement. 3. Victim O expressly reserves the right, within international and domestic legal frameworks, to pursue full accountability, including but not limited to: • Criminal liability • Liability for human rights violations • Liability for unlawful medical and psychological intervention • Liability for defamation and political persecution
No compromise shall be made in this regard.
⸻
V. Concluding Statement
Any attempt to negate the credibility of the victim’s testimony by invoking alleged “psychological issues” or “mental abnormality” constitutes, in itself, one of the core criminal mechanisms examined in this case.
⸻
Omnipotent Justice World Alliance (OJWA) International Justice Research & Accountability Platform