Inquiry Regarding Rule 39 Criteria and Health Deterioration

Inquiry Regarding Rule 39 Criteria and Urgent Health Deterioration

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to respectfully seek guidance and visibility regarding the application of Rule 39 (Interim Measures) under the Rules of Court, specifically concerning cases where immediate and irreparable harm is imminent due to a critical lack of medical intervention.

Despite providing a comprehensive submission of over 500 pages of legal and evidentiary documentation, my requests for interim measures have been twice rejected without a clarified rational response . I find myself in a paradoxical and life-threatening situation that I wish to bring to your attention:

• Obstruction of Medical Evidence: I am currently facing a systemic lack of access to essential healthcare. This serves as a dual barrier: it accelerates my physical deterioration and simultaneously prevents me from obtaining the updated "legal-medical proof" required to satisfy the Court’s evidentiary threshold.

• The Imminence of Irreparable Harm: As a patient with a history of cardiac failure, the risk of a fatal event is not a distant possibility but a daily reality. My health is deteriorating rapidly. The nature of a heart attack is such that there is no "notice period"; once it occurs, the opportunity for the Court to intervene and protect my Right to Life (Article 2) will have passed.

• The Burden of Proof: How can an applicant demonstrate an "immediate risk" when the authorities actively prevent the acquisition of the very diagnostic documents needed for Strasburg? If the Court waits for the harm to manifest fully, the intervention will, by definition, be too late to fulfill its protective function.

I respectfully ask for insight into how an applicant in a state of terminal decline can effectively bridge the gap between a refusal of care and the Court’s requirements for Rule 39. Does the Court have mechanisms to address instances where a State’s own obstruction of medical records is being used to undermine the applicant’s ability to prove urgency?

Even Karolinska University Hospital based in Sweden - avoided to offer a second opinion due to the complexity of my health disease - defining it though with the following words: it requires highly specialized care.

But it represents a paradox considering the immediate diagnosis obtained in Prague (February 2025) by German doctors - highly specialized as well. To investigate on further and specific details- they had scheduled within 3 weeks - a CT coronary scan to better diagnose the issue.

Why was it impeded ? Why Italian authorities forbade it and above all - why hadn’t it been made in Italy? I am not conspiring with it but i am just representing the reality of facts.

I am fully sure that Italian authorities have contacted Karolinska university hospital providing the following statement chasing the mad scheme started on April,8, 2024 - to delay and keep the truth longer and longer far from the reality - with the intention to leave me without any hope to take care, be cured or just being diagnosed in time, for an enormous series of legal responsibilities of Italian hospitals, doctors and people involved in this horrible situation. It would begin an International case if not already started like I am really hoping.

I am reaching out in the hope of finding a path toward justice before my physical condition renders further legal action impossible.

Respectfully,

GALLERY & ATTACHMENTS

Hashtags: #gs4ihr, #worldwide, #slavery, #mafia, #injustice, #gs4ihr, #persecution, #DailyHope, #getsupport, #gethelp, #washington, #usa, #worldwide