Regarding human rights and the outcome of the hearing:
UN Charter of Human rights indeed could be applicable here. Some articles were referenced above, I would find the three following interesting.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independentand impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of anycriminal charge against him.Article 11.(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent untilproved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guaranteesnecessary for his defence.(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omissionwhich did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at thetime when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one thatwas applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.Article 12.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home orcorrespondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right tothe protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
I personally faced committee some weeks ago and did mention the above articles to committee member because I wanted to have my lawyer present in the appeal committee meeting. I wasn't very successfull, they denied my request and I had to face the committee alone (this happened in Europe). Anyway, this could open on possibility for future actions for you Bill.
I myself was surprised by the result on my committee, they played a trick on me. In the beginning of the committee I asked the members what are the options I may be facing. They didn't tell me, so I had to ask them again, that are the possibilities 1) private reproof, 2) public reproof or 3) disfellowshipmen? With a great pain they answered that yes, generally those are the possibilities.
Now, when the time came for them to make the decision, they told me that their ruling was that "I had disassociated myself by un-scriptural behaviour". I went like whaat... is that?! Their answer was that this is just a wording they may sometimes choose to use. No explanation was offered why they chose to make that decision instead of disfellowshipment. Clearly, it was a word-play of shrugging any possible responsibility off the shoulders of the committee elders.
That was what happened in the first hearing. The result of the appeal hearing was exactly the same. But a second surprise did follow. Usually it is possible to veto to the Bethel if one is not satisfied with the appeal hearing result. Now, however, I was told that it is not possible to veto to bethel if their decision is the wording they decided to use.
In my case I had information that the elders had been in contact with the bethel even before my first committee meeting. Obviously they were instructed to use this wording to avoid legal troubles. For me this is a new proceeding, Elder's book (91 edition) doesn't mention this.
When they announced their decision in the meeting, the wording was simple "And a short announcement, X XXX is no longer a Jehovah's witness.". Previously I was told that they would announce like "XXX has disassociated himself by unscriptural behaviour (1. Cor. 5)". However I had informed the elder that I would consider an announcement like that libellous, so the elders probably decided to avoid any problems with that short wording.
-critter