[sarchertech]

So your evidence is that the internet archive didn’t scrape the document until 23 minutes after midnight? And the most likely explanation isn’t that it took the IA scraper a few minutes to pick it up? The most likely explanation is that the NYT and the Guardian were wrong or lying and that the UN was lying?

Did you even know about the time on the internet archive before I brought it up? You said “within hours” so I assume you didn’t? Where did you hear that it as published on September 1st?

[xanthor]

You chose the Internet Archive as authoritative evidence, not me. Your back-pedaling "most likely explanation" is again disproven by your own source as the Internet Archive recorded an error page for that URL just four minutes prior. So we know that the document was not available before September 1, after Bachelet's term had ended.

Where has the UN asserted that Bachelet prepared this report? Please share if you are aware of any such assertion.

Again, the report does not make any reference to the High Commissioner's inquiries as other reports do. Your "most likely explanation" fails to account for this.

Yes, media outlets lie and make errors all the time. Sorry to be the one to break this to you.

[sarchertech]

Bachelet made numerous public statements in the weeks leading up to the release that she was gonna to release a report before she left.

A report from as released.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/un-human-rig...

The UN press release is dated 8/31 Geneva time. The document is as well.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/outgoing-un-human-rights...

Numerous newspapers and NGOs who received the press release have stated that it was released on her last day in office. Many of them complained that by doing this she was attempting to avoid the fallout.

Bachelet made no statements even hinting that it wasn’t the report she prepared.

If she was worried that someone would release a report once she left, she could have released her version before she left to prevent that.

Reuters quotes the Chinese Ambassador thusly “If I read her mind correctly, I don't think she's on board with the report and that's why it was released in the last minute,"

Notice he made no mention of “the report was backdated”. He says “last minute”.

I can find no evidence of any official Chinese position that the report was backdated. Surely the Chinese government would have complained if this had taken place.

This whole thing is just some nonsense internet speculation with zero evidence that proposes a version of the facts that not even the Chinese government agrees with.