Dear Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland,

1. The police make an "Attestation" as follows All UK Police Officers
swear this "Attestation"

"I, .. .. of .. .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I
will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with
fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will,
to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and
prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I
continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and
knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

What is the definition of serve?

What is the definition of the Queen, which Queen are you referring to?

What is the definition of Constable?

What is the definition of people?

What is the definition of discharge?

What is the definition of offences?

What is the definition of property?

Are International laws higher than domestic laws?

6. Why is the following law not being given due diligence and who is
responsible for enforcing it?

1. Article 25.3(c) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which
includes the phrase "including providing the means for the commission of
the crime", the 'means' incorporates the money, materials, weapons and
armed forces personnel needed to commit one or more of the 4 ICC crimes
(genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression).

2. Section 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001 or Section 2 of
the International Criminal Court [Scotland] Act 2001. This legislation
makes it a criminal offence in Britain to engage in "conduct ancillary to
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the legislation goes
on to define ancillary conduct as behaviour which falls under The
Accessories and Abettors Act 1861.

3. The Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal provides the relevant precedent in
the section quoted in the article

" It was submitted [by the defendants] that international law is concerned
with the action of sovereign states, and provides no punishment for
individuals; and further, that where the act in question is an act of
state, those who carry it out are not personally responsible, but are
protected by the doctrine of the sovereignty of the State. In the opinion
of the Tribunal, both these submissions must be rejected. That
international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals as well
as upon States has long been recognised…

The very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international
duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by
the individual State. He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain
immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the State, if the
State in authorising action moves outside its competence under
international law…”

Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal 1946

Yours faithfully,

emma gomez