The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the principal global coalition of anti-torture organizations, has a new Secretary General today as Gerald Staberock succeeds Eric Sottas who had led the organization since its inception in 1985 and who is taking his retirement today.
Before joining OMCT in December 2010, Mr. Staberock led global programs at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), including its Centre for Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and its Global Security and Rule of Law Initiative. In this context he coordinated the most comprehensive global study on counter-terrorism and human rights (ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights). Before joining the ICJ he worked at the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on rule of law and anti-torture projects, including on penitentiary and legal reforms in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He concluded his judicial clerkship at the Higher Regional Court in Berlin qualifying as lawyer. He received his legal education in Bonn, Geneva and Washington DC (LLM). Mr Staberock has also written on a number of issues, including the rule of law in transition countries, counter-terrorism and human rights and the national implementation of human rights law.
“We are confident that Gerald Staberock, who has joined the OMCT nine months ago, will build on the foundation that has been laid," said Mr Yves Berthelot, OMCT President. "His legal rigour, rich experience in anti-torture and rule of law reforms in transition countries, and place at the heart of the debate on torture and counter-terrorism over the last ten years enable him to lead the organisation and to ensure its rightful place at the forefront of the fight against torture”.
“I am honoured to take up this challenge at a time when the strong and principled advocacy voice of the OMCT is more needed than ever” said Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General. “The absolute prohibition of torture is challenged today through lack of respect and a pervasive culture of impunity in many parts of the world. At the same time there are opportunities not least through the transitions of the Arab spring to advance the fight against torture. This is the time to double the effort, to assist and support victims of torture, to ensure accountability and prevent torture, and to counter public complacency in the face of torture. I am looking forward to contribute to this cause together with the dedicated team in the OMCT Secretariat and in the partner organisation of the SOS Torture Network”, he added in a first comment.
Since its founding in 1997, Human Rights USA (originally called the World Organization Against Torture USA) has been a member of the SOS Torture Network, a coalition of more than 300 human rights organizations working to stop torture within their own countries. Human Rights USA's Executive Director, Theresa Harris, serves as a member of OMCT's General Assembly.
As we welcome Mr. Staberock to his new position, we gratefully applaud Mr. Sottas for his outstanding accomplishments with OMCT. The organization's achievements are the direct result of his vision, dedication and steadfast determination against torture.
Showing posts with label Accountability for Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Accountability for Torture. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
U.S. Government Undermines Abu Ghraib Torture Victim's Right to Remedy
6-13-2011
By Melina MilazzoPennoyer Fellow, Law and Security
Once again, the Obama administration shirked its legal and moral responsibility to ensure torture victims are provided an enforceable remedy when it advised the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear a case brought by Iraqi detainees tortured by private military contractors at Abu Ghraib.
The case, Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corporation, et al., is a civil suit brought by 250 Iraqi detainees for torture by U.S. private contractors CACI and Titan (now L-3 Services). The two companies were retained to provide interrogation and interpretation services at Abu Ghraib, the infamous Iraqi prison that the Department of Defense (DoD) reported was the site of “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” of Iraqi prisoners committed by Americans under the authority of Americans. Army investigations implicated private contractors in the torture and abuse of detainees held there. While 11 soldiers were convicted on detainee abuse charges, no contractor was ever criminally charged.
In September 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the civil case on the ground that contractors involved in combat activities on a battlefield should be protected from lawsuits. The victims appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Human Rights First submitted an amicus brief arguing that the decision by the D.C. Circuit to immunize the criminal conduct of private military contractors is incompatible with the United States’ international legal obligations, including its obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) to provide “enforceable” or “effective” remedies to victims for acts of torture and serious abuse.
Before deciding whether or not to hear the case, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. government, which is not a party to the suit, its opinion or interest. Human Rights First sent a letter to the Acting Solicitor General urging the government to advise the Court to hear the case and reverse the decision that denies victims a remedy.
The Acting Solicitor General, however, did the exact opposite.
Eight months after the Supreme Court requested the government’s opinion, the U.S. government submitted a brief telling the Supreme Court it should deny cert and leave the appellate court’s dismissal intact. While acknowledging the appellate court ruling’s shortcomings – that contractors cannot be “fully integrated” into combat and that torture by private contractors is a war crime actionable under U.S. law – the U.S. government largely aligned itself with the appellate court’s majority position.
The government’s brief asserts that it has a “variety of tools at its disposal” to punish people who torture and compensate victims, but it fails to mention not only that it has failed to enforce the applicable laws, but has also thwarted every effort by victims to seek legal redress. It also goes to great lengths to describe the number of steps the U.S. government has taken to improve contractor oversight, including barring contractors from performing interrogations. But improvement does not amount to accountability and it certainly does not provide victims an enforceable right to remedy. Indeed, the government’s brief makes no mention of its obligations to provide torture victims an enforceable remedy under the ICCPR and CAT.
But even apart from its legal obligations, there are good reasons why the United States should as a matter of policy afford victims of torture a compensatory remedy. First, civil actions are a beneficial addition to criminal actions, which may alone not sufficiently create accountability for human rights abuses due to lack of will to prosecute. Second, monetary compensation provides victims of torture the necessary funds for treatment and rehabilitation. Third, the absence of an enforceable right to redress for serious crimes against civilians can only alienate local populations, which undermines U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
The United States recognized that providing civil remedies for contractor abuses advances U.S. interests when it became a signatory to the Montreux Document on the Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict, which recommends that States “provide for non-criminal accountability mechanisms for improper and unlawful conduct” of private contractors including, civil liability.
Moreover, the military has expressed its preference to rely on the existing structure of tort liability as a tool to deter contractor misconduct.
It’s unclear whether the Supreme Court will follow the U.S. government’s recommendation to not hear the case, effectively foreclosing any possibility that Abu Ghraib torture abuses will be remedied. But what is clear, is that the U.S. government is not serious about meeting its international legal obligations to ensure torture victims have such a right.
By Melina MilazzoPennoyer Fellow, Law and Security
Once again, the Obama administration shirked its legal and moral responsibility to ensure torture victims are provided an enforceable remedy when it advised the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear a case brought by Iraqi detainees tortured by private military contractors at Abu Ghraib.
The case, Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corporation, et al., is a civil suit brought by 250 Iraqi detainees for torture by U.S. private contractors CACI and Titan (now L-3 Services). The two companies were retained to provide interrogation and interpretation services at Abu Ghraib, the infamous Iraqi prison that the Department of Defense (DoD) reported was the site of “numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” of Iraqi prisoners committed by Americans under the authority of Americans. Army investigations implicated private contractors in the torture and abuse of detainees held there. While 11 soldiers were convicted on detainee abuse charges, no contractor was ever criminally charged.
In September 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the civil case on the ground that contractors involved in combat activities on a battlefield should be protected from lawsuits. The victims appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Human Rights First submitted an amicus brief arguing that the decision by the D.C. Circuit to immunize the criminal conduct of private military contractors is incompatible with the United States’ international legal obligations, including its obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) to provide “enforceable” or “effective” remedies to victims for acts of torture and serious abuse.
Before deciding whether or not to hear the case, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. government, which is not a party to the suit, its opinion or interest. Human Rights First sent a letter to the Acting Solicitor General urging the government to advise the Court to hear the case and reverse the decision that denies victims a remedy.
The Acting Solicitor General, however, did the exact opposite.
Eight months after the Supreme Court requested the government’s opinion, the U.S. government submitted a brief telling the Supreme Court it should deny cert and leave the appellate court’s dismissal intact. While acknowledging the appellate court ruling’s shortcomings – that contractors cannot be “fully integrated” into combat and that torture by private contractors is a war crime actionable under U.S. law – the U.S. government largely aligned itself with the appellate court’s majority position.
The government’s brief asserts that it has a “variety of tools at its disposal” to punish people who torture and compensate victims, but it fails to mention not only that it has failed to enforce the applicable laws, but has also thwarted every effort by victims to seek legal redress. It also goes to great lengths to describe the number of steps the U.S. government has taken to improve contractor oversight, including barring contractors from performing interrogations. But improvement does not amount to accountability and it certainly does not provide victims an enforceable right to remedy. Indeed, the government’s brief makes no mention of its obligations to provide torture victims an enforceable remedy under the ICCPR and CAT.
But even apart from its legal obligations, there are good reasons why the United States should as a matter of policy afford victims of torture a compensatory remedy. First, civil actions are a beneficial addition to criminal actions, which may alone not sufficiently create accountability for human rights abuses due to lack of will to prosecute. Second, monetary compensation provides victims of torture the necessary funds for treatment and rehabilitation. Third, the absence of an enforceable right to redress for serious crimes against civilians can only alienate local populations, which undermines U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.
The United States recognized that providing civil remedies for contractor abuses advances U.S. interests when it became a signatory to the Montreux Document on the Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies during Armed Conflict, which recommends that States “provide for non-criminal accountability mechanisms for improper and unlawful conduct” of private contractors including, civil liability.
Moreover, the military has expressed its preference to rely on the existing structure of tort liability as a tool to deter contractor misconduct.
It’s unclear whether the Supreme Court will follow the U.S. government’s recommendation to not hear the case, effectively foreclosing any possibility that Abu Ghraib torture abuses will be remedied. But what is clear, is that the U.S. government is not serious about meeting its international legal obligations to ensure torture victims have such a right.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Human Rights Groups Challenge Government Secrecy on the Use of Waterboarding
On June 10, 2011, the World Organization for Human Rights USA (Human Rights USA) joined with the Brennan Center for Justice and nine other human rights organizations filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn a district court decision permitting the U.S. government to continue withholding information about its use of the illegal interrogation method of waterboarding.
The decision was issued in ACLU v. Department of Defense. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. The district court ruled against the ACLU, holding that the CIA had authority under the FOIA to withhold the information because it relates to “intelligence methods.”
On appeal, the ACLU argues that the FOIA does not permit the CIA to withhold information about the use of waterboarding – an interrogation technique that the United States has prosecuted as a war crime and that President Obama has declared to be torture, and therefore unlawful. The ACLU notes that since waterboarding is unlawful, it is outside the scope of the CIA’s charter and therefore, cannot be considered a valid “intelligence method” eligible for withholding under the FOIA.
In the brief filed in support of the ACLU’s appeal, the human rights groups detail the CIA’s history of conducting secret illegal or improper activities—from domestic surveillance to extraordinary rendition— as well as Congress’ repeated attempts to reign in the agency. The brief argues that although confidentiality may be necessary to protect legitimate methods of intelligence gathering, Congress has repeatedly made it clear that secrecy to conceal illegal CIA conduct is not in our nation’s interest.
Allison Lefrak, Litigation Director at Human Rights USA, stated, “Permitting the CIA to withhold information concerning unlawful conduct such as waterboarding would undermine the rule of law and remove one of the most important tools for ensuring government accountability for torture.”
The decision was issued in ACLU v. Department of Defense. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding. The district court ruled against the ACLU, holding that the CIA had authority under the FOIA to withhold the information because it relates to “intelligence methods.”
On appeal, the ACLU argues that the FOIA does not permit the CIA to withhold information about the use of waterboarding – an interrogation technique that the United States has prosecuted as a war crime and that President Obama has declared to be torture, and therefore unlawful. The ACLU notes that since waterboarding is unlawful, it is outside the scope of the CIA’s charter and therefore, cannot be considered a valid “intelligence method” eligible for withholding under the FOIA.
In the brief filed in support of the ACLU’s appeal, the human rights groups detail the CIA’s history of conducting secret illegal or improper activities—from domestic surveillance to extraordinary rendition— as well as Congress’ repeated attempts to reign in the agency. The brief argues that although confidentiality may be necessary to protect legitimate methods of intelligence gathering, Congress has repeatedly made it clear that secrecy to conceal illegal CIA conduct is not in our nation’s interest.
Allison Lefrak, Litigation Director at Human Rights USA, stated, “Permitting the CIA to withhold information concerning unlawful conduct such as waterboarding would undermine the rule of law and remove one of the most important tools for ensuring government accountability for torture.”
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Post Osama - The Way Forward for the United States
JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin G. Davis, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Toledo College of Law and a supporter of Human Rights USA, answers a few questions about Osama Bin Laden's death and discusses what it might mean in terms of foreign affairs and domestic attitudes towards torture...http://jurist.org/forum/2011/05/benjamin-davis-post-osama.php
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Wrap-up: Bush's canceled trip to Switzerland
A few days ago, Human Rights USA was part of a loud chorus of international anti-torture advocates urging Swiss government officials to take swift action if former President Bush went through with announced plans to visit Switzerland. We are gratified that the calls for Switzerland to uphold its international obligations seem to have prompted President Bush to call off the trip. (Anyone who says international human rights law doesn't have any teeth hasn't been forced to cancel their travel plans for fear of indictment.)
The law is clear: no one, not even former heads of state, enjoys immunity from prosecution for torture. The Pinochet Precedent took that principle from theory to practice. As quoted in an article in The Guardian:
The Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and the World Organization Against Torture all issued statements reiterating the need to investigate and prosecute those responsible for torture -- even former presidents -- even former presidents of the United States of America. Today, Human Rights Watch called on U.S. officials to prosecute, saying, "The U.S. record on accountability for detainee abuse has been abysmal. The official authorization of torture by a head of state should never go unpunished."
For more news coverage, here are links to stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.
The law is clear: no one, not even former heads of state, enjoys immunity from prosecution for torture. The Pinochet Precedent took that principle from theory to practice. As quoted in an article in The Guardian:
"Nobody – from those who administered the practices to those at the top of the chain of command – is under a shield of absolute immunity for the practices of secret detention, extraordinary rendition and torture," said Martin Scheinin, UN special rapporteur on human rights and professor of public international law at the European University Institute. "Legally this case is quite clear. Bush does not enjoy immunity as a former head of state, and he has command responsibility for the decisions that were taken."How did we get to the point that a former U.S. president is not free to travel the world for fear of prosecution and protests? More importantly, how do we prevent this from happening again? Here at Human Rights USA, we believe that fully implementing the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is a good place to start. The Convention requires governments to fully investigate allegations of torture, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. When the U.S. government fails to uphold its obligations, other countries, like Switzerland, are obliged to step in.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and the World Organization Against Torture all issued statements reiterating the need to investigate and prosecute those responsible for torture -- even former presidents -- even former presidents of the United States of America. Today, Human Rights Watch called on U.S. officials to prosecute, saying, "The U.S. record on accountability for detainee abuse has been abysmal. The official authorization of torture by a head of state should never go unpunished."
For more news coverage, here are links to stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Switzerland Must Not Make Exceptions for the United States
The Swiss media is reporting that former President George W. Bush plans to visit Geneva on February 12, 2011. In response, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) - the principle coalition of anti-torture organizations – issued a statement calling on the Swiss authorities to uphold its legal obligations under domestic law and the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) regarding a visit of former President George W Bush to Geneva. As a member of OMCT, Human Rights USA joins this urgent request.
For Eric Sottas, Secretary General of the OMCT ‘there is not the slightest doubt that Switzerland is obliged under both international law and its domestic law to initiate an investigation for acts of torture against any individual present on its territory that has committed, authorized, participated in or was otherwise complicit in acts of torture. There are no laws that provide an exception for former head of states’.
OMCT's letter to the Swiss government points to the compelling body of evidence about the US policies of torture and ill-treatment under the Bush administration. These policies are well documented and to a large extent publicly acknowledged, including by the former President’s own admissions of having authorized interrogations practices that constitute torture.
‘This is not about targeting a former US President. It is about the respect for the rule of law’, added Eric Sottas. In February 2001 the OMCT had mandated Mr Francois Membrez to bring a criminal complaint for torture against the former Interior Minister of Tunisia Abdallah Kallel on behalf of a victim. The General Prosecutor of Geneva swiftly initiated - on the basis of the same principles as those at stake today – an arrest warrant which could only not be executed because the Minister had left the country in record speed. Ten years later he was prevented from leaving Tunisia in order to be brought to justice, a development seen by Tunisian and European commentators to be influenced by the case opened at the time in Geneva.
Torture is a crime under international law wherever and by whoever it is committed and for the OMCT it is central that the law must not distinguish on the basis of the status or origin of the offender. The OMCT also recalls that the United States has so far not taken any steps to assume its responsibility to undertake comprehensive independent investigations with the aim of bringing those responsible to justice for torture, enforced disappearances and other crimes under international law. Nor have they provided any remedies or reparations for the victims of such practices even in the case of well documented abuse.
Governments should not believe that the question of legal accountability will just go away. To the contrary it needs to be addressed now and states, and especially the political allies of the United States, should start exercising their influence to bring the impunity for orture, secret detention and extraordinary renditions to an end.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Thanks to TASSC for hosting meeting with UN Special Rapporteur
On January 13, the Torture Abolition and Survivor Support Coalition (TASSC) hosted a meeting with the newly appointed UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Dr. Juan Mendez. We're grateful that TASSC invited us to attend this meeting and thankful to work alongside the passionate advocates against torture who were there, including more than twenty survivors of torture from TASSC as well as representatives from the National Religious Campaign against Torture, Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Pax Christi USA, Maryknoll Office for Global Concern, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
We were especially inspired to hear Dr. Mendez describe his "victim-centered" approach to his mandate. As Special Rapporteur, a job he stepped into two months ago, Dr. Mendez will investigate individual reports of torture worldwide and work with governments to stop and prevent torture. Being a survivor of torture himself, he has a very special sensitivity to the rights of survivors to information and redress.
At the meeting, Dr. Mendez noted that he is in discussions with the U.S. Government about complaints of torture committed in the name of national security, including allegations regarding the conditions in which Pvt. Bradley Manning is being held in Quantico, Virginia. He also discussed the international status of the U.N. Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (neither of which has been ratified by the U.S.)
For more about the meeting, please visit TASSC's website: http://tassc.org/blog/2011/01/tassc-hosts-u-n-special-rapporteur-on-torture/
We were especially inspired to hear Dr. Mendez describe his "victim-centered" approach to his mandate. As Special Rapporteur, a job he stepped into two months ago, Dr. Mendez will investigate individual reports of torture worldwide and work with governments to stop and prevent torture. Being a survivor of torture himself, he has a very special sensitivity to the rights of survivors to information and redress.
At the meeting, Dr. Mendez noted that he is in discussions with the U.S. Government about complaints of torture committed in the name of national security, including allegations regarding the conditions in which Pvt. Bradley Manning is being held in Quantico, Virginia. He also discussed the international status of the U.N. Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and Optional Protocol to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (neither of which has been ratified by the U.S.)
For more about the meeting, please visit TASSC's website: http://tassc.org/blog/2011/01/tassc-hosts-u-n-special-rapporteur-on-torture/
Friday, January 14, 2011
We're watching this case closely... so is the Blog of the Legal Times:
When we talk about closing the gaps between international human rights standards and U.S. laws, this is what we mean.
Survivors of torture have a right to redress and accountability. The UN Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. has ratified, sets this out in no uncertain terms. And yet, Senior Judge Harry Edwards told ACLU attorney for the plaintiffs, Cecillia Wang, “You can’t prevail under the law of the circuit... It’s not your fault. That’s what the law of the circuit is.”D.C. Circuit Appeals Ready to Void Torture Suit
When we talk about closing the gaps between international human rights standards and U.S. laws, this is what we mean.
Friday, November 12, 2010
No Immunity For Ordering Torture
According to Dan Froomkin:
British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson was quoted in the British press this week as saying Bush's admission could leave him open to arrest and possible prosecution if he visits countries that have ratified the UN torture convention.That includes a good chunk of the globe.
"George W Bush has confessed to ordering waterboarding, which in the view of almost all experts clearly passes the severe pain threshold in the definition of torture in international law," Robertson said. "[H]e is an ex-head of state so he is not entitled to immunity from arrest and trial."
Robertson added: "So his retirement travel plans may well be circumscribed, although he never ventured abroad before he became President, and no doubt made the statements in his book having been advised of this potential consequence."
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
"Damn right" couldn't be more wrong.
According to the Washington Post, former President Bush not only admits to ordering torture in his upcoming memoir, he is proud of it. The article says that when asked whether approved the CIA's use of waterboarding against 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he replied, "Damn right."
How can he get it so wrong? Waterboarding is torture, which is illegal and immoral under all circumstances. Period.
Statements like these also put U.S. national security at risk. As the Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture says, "This cavalier attitude by the President who authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law not only damages our nation’s credibility throughout the world, but also discourages global cooperation to combat
terrorism. It was only last week the U.S. was reminded that to protect our country from terrorists, and to collect vital information, we need the trust of individuals and governments worldwide. The bombs shipped on airplanes bound for the U.S. were stopped because of the cooperation of foreign intelligence services. The U.S. stands the best chance of becoming the ally of more people around the world—people who can join us in the fight against terrorism—by rejecting torture. This effort is severely hampered when our leaders makes such careless and rash remarks without realizing the harmful impact on America’s security."
If you need evidence to back up this statement, just look to the many questions U.S. allies posed during last week's UPR about closing Guantanamo and ending torture. These questions came from concerns that other democracies share about how the U.S. has undermined global efforts to end torture, and how the facts revealed about U.S. use of torture has been used to drum up antagonism toward the U.S. and other western democracies.
Former President Bush's statement shows exactly why an independent non-partisan commission tasked with examining and reporting publicly on torture and cruel treatment of prisoners is needed, and why that investigation ought to look at command responsibility, not just the lower ranking officers who carried out torture.
Human Rights USA's clients who have survived torture at the hands of foreign government officials look to the U.S. to be a positive force for ending torture worldwide. They demand, and deserve, accountability to ensure that the U.S. never again sinks to these tactics.
How can he get it so wrong? Waterboarding is torture, which is illegal and immoral under all circumstances. Period.
Statements like these also put U.S. national security at risk. As the Executive Director of the Center for Victims of Torture says, "This cavalier attitude by the President who authorized torture in violation of U.S. and international law not only damages our nation’s credibility throughout the world, but also discourages global cooperation to combat
terrorism. It was only last week the U.S. was reminded that to protect our country from terrorists, and to collect vital information, we need the trust of individuals and governments worldwide. The bombs shipped on airplanes bound for the U.S. were stopped because of the cooperation of foreign intelligence services. The U.S. stands the best chance of becoming the ally of more people around the world—people who can join us in the fight against terrorism—by rejecting torture. This effort is severely hampered when our leaders makes such careless and rash remarks without realizing the harmful impact on America’s security."
If you need evidence to back up this statement, just look to the many questions U.S. allies posed during last week's UPR about closing Guantanamo and ending torture. These questions came from concerns that other democracies share about how the U.S. has undermined global efforts to end torture, and how the facts revealed about U.S. use of torture has been used to drum up antagonism toward the U.S. and other western democracies.
Former President Bush's statement shows exactly why an independent non-partisan commission tasked with examining and reporting publicly on torture and cruel treatment of prisoners is needed, and why that investigation ought to look at command responsibility, not just the lower ranking officers who carried out torture.
Human Rights USA's clients who have survived torture at the hands of foreign government officials look to the U.S. to be a positive force for ending torture worldwide. They demand, and deserve, accountability to ensure that the U.S. never again sinks to these tactics.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Felony Torture Statute is Constitutional
Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the statute passed to implement the Convention Against Torture is constitutional. The decision upholds the jury verdict and sentence holding Charles "Chuckie" Taylor, Jr.'s accountable for torture committed when he was head of the Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU) in Liberia.
The court's decision reads: "After thorough review, we conclude that all of Emmanuel’s convictions are constitutional. The United States validly adopted the CAT [Convention Against Torture] pursuant to the President’s Article II treaty-making authority, and it was well within Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to criminalize both torture, as defined by the Torture Act, and conspiracy to commit torture. Furthermore, we hold that both the Torture Act and the firearm statute apply to extraterritorial conduct, and that their application in this case was proper. Finally, we conclude that Emmanuel’s trial and the resulting convictions were not rendered fundamentally unfair by any evidentiary or other procedural errors, and that his sentence is without error. Accordingly, we affirm Emmanuel’s convictions and sentence in all respects."
The full decision is available here: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910461.pdf
The court's decision reads: "After thorough review, we conclude that all of Emmanuel’s convictions are constitutional. The United States validly adopted the CAT [Convention Against Torture] pursuant to the President’s Article II treaty-making authority, and it was well within Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to criminalize both torture, as defined by the Torture Act, and conspiracy to commit torture. Furthermore, we hold that both the Torture Act and the firearm statute apply to extraterritorial conduct, and that their application in this case was proper. Finally, we conclude that Emmanuel’s trial and the resulting convictions were not rendered fundamentally unfair by any evidentiary or other procedural errors, and that his sentence is without error. Accordingly, we affirm Emmanuel’s convictions and sentence in all respects."
The full decision is available here: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910461.pdf
Saturday, June 26, 2010
International Day in Support of Victims of Torture - Nothing can justify torture and ill-treatment under any circumstances
USA: REDRESS FOR TORTURE LONG OVERDUE
Washington, DC – Geneva, 26 June 2010. On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and its member organisation in the United States, Human Rights USA, jointly call on the Government of the United States of America to show its commitment to abolish torture and other forms of ill-treatment by implementing effectively the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT).
OMCT and Human Rights USA welcome the Obama Administration’s stated desire to bring U.S. policies in line with international human rights norms and, to that end, the decision last year to release previously confidential documentation of torture ordered during interrogations. We also applaud the decisions to release some detainees from Guantánamo Bay to third countries, transfer one terrorism suspect to New York to stand trial in federal court rather than by military tribunal, and order the closure of CIA secret prisons.
However, the administration continues to enforce policies that, as President Obama recognized during his presidential campaign, do not respect human rights. These include detention of suspects at the Guantánamo Bay facility, extraordinary rendition policies, and use of coerced testimony in military tribunals. The U.S. Government has yet to hold accountable government officials who ordered or provided the legal justifications for torture. In addition, the Obama Administration has thwarted efforts by survivors of torture like Maher Arar and Khaled El-Masri to access the courts in order to assert their rights, seek remedies, and secure accountability.
On this day dedicated to victims of torture and other ill-treatment, OMCT and Human Rights USA urge the United States Government to launch prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigations into the alleged torture and ill-treatment as well as other human rights violations that took place during the previous administration. The result of such investigations must not only be made public, but criminal prosecutions must moreover be brought against the suspected perpetrators of ill-treatment. If they are found guilty, a penalty proportionate to their crimes should be imposed.
Furthermore, the victims must be granted adequate redress for their suffering, including rehabilitation for physical and psychological impacts of the abuses, as required by the Convention against Torture. The U.S. Government should cease its practice of improperly invoking the “state secrets doctrine,” so that victims will be afforded fair and effective access to independent and impartial courts of law as well as ensured access to all relevant information concerning the reasons for their arrests and detention in order to allow them to effectively challenge the abuses committed and seek adequate redress, including compensation and rehabilitation. The U.S. Government also should avoid seeking “qualified immunity” for Government officials as a means of avoiding liability for torture and other human rights abuses that are already universally prohibited as a matter of law and therefore cannot be considered “official acts” entitled to immunity.
Lastly, the U.S. Government should issue formal apologies to each individual victim of these abuses. By assuming responsibility for these grave abuses of fundamental human rights, the Obama administration would send a strong message to the world that the United States of America takes its duty to protect human rights, including the absolute prohibition against torture, seriously.
Washington, DC – Geneva, 26 June 2010. On the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and its member organisation in the United States, Human Rights USA, jointly call on the Government of the United States of America to show its commitment to abolish torture and other forms of ill-treatment by implementing effectively the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT).
OMCT and Human Rights USA welcome the Obama Administration’s stated desire to bring U.S. policies in line with international human rights norms and, to that end, the decision last year to release previously confidential documentation of torture ordered during interrogations. We also applaud the decisions to release some detainees from Guantánamo Bay to third countries, transfer one terrorism suspect to New York to stand trial in federal court rather than by military tribunal, and order the closure of CIA secret prisons.
However, the administration continues to enforce policies that, as President Obama recognized during his presidential campaign, do not respect human rights. These include detention of suspects at the Guantánamo Bay facility, extraordinary rendition policies, and use of coerced testimony in military tribunals. The U.S. Government has yet to hold accountable government officials who ordered or provided the legal justifications for torture. In addition, the Obama Administration has thwarted efforts by survivors of torture like Maher Arar and Khaled El-Masri to access the courts in order to assert their rights, seek remedies, and secure accountability.
On this day dedicated to victims of torture and other ill-treatment, OMCT and Human Rights USA urge the United States Government to launch prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigations into the alleged torture and ill-treatment as well as other human rights violations that took place during the previous administration. The result of such investigations must not only be made public, but criminal prosecutions must moreover be brought against the suspected perpetrators of ill-treatment. If they are found guilty, a penalty proportionate to their crimes should be imposed.
Furthermore, the victims must be granted adequate redress for their suffering, including rehabilitation for physical and psychological impacts of the abuses, as required by the Convention against Torture. The U.S. Government should cease its practice of improperly invoking the “state secrets doctrine,” so that victims will be afforded fair and effective access to independent and impartial courts of law as well as ensured access to all relevant information concerning the reasons for their arrests and detention in order to allow them to effectively challenge the abuses committed and seek adequate redress, including compensation and rehabilitation. The U.S. Government also should avoid seeking “qualified immunity” for Government officials as a means of avoiding liability for torture and other human rights abuses that are already universally prohibited as a matter of law and therefore cannot be considered “official acts” entitled to immunity.
Lastly, the U.S. Government should issue formal apologies to each individual victim of these abuses. By assuming responsibility for these grave abuses of fundamental human rights, the Obama administration would send a strong message to the world that the United States of America takes its duty to protect human rights, including the absolute prohibition against torture, seriously.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
IN THE NEWS: Case Against Rumsfeld for Mistreatment of American Citizens Goes Forward
Last Friday, on March 5, 2010, a U.S. judge Judge Wayne R. Anderson (N.D. Ill.) allowed a suit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to go forward (in legalese: the case survived a motion to dismiss). The complaint, which alleges that Rumsfeld authorized torture against U.S. citizens, survived despite the defendant’s vigorous claims of immunity (see our earlier blog entry for more discussion of immunity issues).
According to the Complaint, in 2005, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, both American citizens, traveled to Iraq to work for an Iraqi security firm, Shield Group Security (SGS). After suspecting that SGS was paying off local sheiks for influence in obtaining government contracts, Vance and Ertel informed the FBI in Chicago and U.S. officials in Iraq. When SGS officials threatened their lives for revealing company information, Vance and Ertel sought protection from the U.S. military. However, after interrogating Vance and Ertel at the US Embassy, U.S. officials imprisoned them and refused to grant them habeas corpus petitions.
The plaintiffs allege that once they were in custody at a U.S. military base, officials detained these two American citizens as “persons of interest” by invoking authority Rumsfeld had previously granted. Vance was detained for three months and Ertel was detained for over a month without charges and forced to live in extremely unsanitary conditions. During this time, the plaintiffs claim that U.S. officials used tortuous interrogation techniques to attempt to solicit confessions. Some of these techniques included the use of solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme cold and loud music, and other similarly cruel tactics.
Eventually, both American citizens were released without charges and allowed to return to the U.S. On December 18, 2006, plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against Rumsfeld for authorizing the alleged constitutional violations they endured during their detention.
For more coverage, see Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and the Huffington Post.
Prepared by International Justice Project Intern Daniel Cousineau.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
IN THE NEWS: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Samantar Case
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday regarding whether former government officials who commit human rights violations should enjoy immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
The petitioner in the case, Mohamed Ali Samantar, served as Vice President, Minister of Defense, and Prime Minister under General Siad Barre in Somalia during a period of intense conflict in the region. Under the command of Samantar, who is now living just outside of Washington, DC, the Somali Armed Forces committed numerous atrocities against Somali citizens. (For more background on Mr. Samantar and the cases leading to the Supreme Court, see our previous post.)
Yesterday’s arguments before the Supreme Court addressed (1) whether a foreign state’s immunity from suit under the FSIA extends to an individual; and (2) whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state retains immunity for acts committed while s/he was acting in that capacity.
In non-legal terms: We don’t allow people to sue foreign governments because that would be a political mess... but what about individual government officials? Who can be held accountable for wrongs they committed and who can use a government position as a reason not to participate in a lawsuit?
Samantar’s lawyers argued that individuals who acted in the official capacity of a foreign government should be protected by FSIA (and thus not be subject to a lawsuit) because “such suits are the equivalent of a suit against the state directly.” Samantar’s attorney argued that while the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA) allows torture survivors and their families to bring claims against those who violated their human rights, that statute must be interpreted with existing immunity principles. In other words, FSIA should trump the TVPA. Samantar’s attorneys argue that if there is no explicit exception from Congress or waiver of immunity by the foreign state where a potential defendant is or was an official, no one should be able to hold that person accountable for actions taken in his or her official capacity. Samantar’s lawyers argued that the legislative history shows that the FSIA was intended to codify the common law and international law understandings of foreign governmental immunity and there is no mention of individuals because there was no dispute that the law would apply to individuals.
Attorneys for the Somalis who suffered under the Barre regime argued that the silence of the law shows Congress’ intent not to protect individuals from suit. The attorneys also noted that the TVPA was passed after FSIA and specifically gives torture victims and their families access to U.S. courts. The TVPA, they argued, imposed personal liability on individuals, including those who were acting with actual or apparent authority of the foreign state. Furthermore, if every act of a governmental official amounted to an act of the state, the cause of action under the TVPA would not exist. So the question becomes: can you torture someone and then avoid being held accountable by claiming you were acting on behalf of a foreign government when you did so?
The Deputy Solicitor General argued the Court should allow some lawsuits against individuals, while allowing the U.S. State Department to weigh in on immunity for such individuals.
Nina Totenberg gives a sneak peak at the arguments prior to arguments in Court today.
SCOTUSBlog has short podcasts of attorneys from both sides explaining their arguments.
SCOTUSBlog analysis of the arguments.
Transcript of yesterday’s argument.
Prepared with assistance from IJP Intern Christiaan Segura.
The petitioner in the case, Mohamed Ali Samantar, served as Vice President, Minister of Defense, and Prime Minister under General Siad Barre in Somalia during a period of intense conflict in the region. Under the command of Samantar, who is now living just outside of Washington, DC, the Somali Armed Forces committed numerous atrocities against Somali citizens. (For more background on Mr. Samantar and the cases leading to the Supreme Court, see our previous post.)
Yesterday’s arguments before the Supreme Court addressed (1) whether a foreign state’s immunity from suit under the FSIA extends to an individual; and (2) whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state retains immunity for acts committed while s/he was acting in that capacity.
In non-legal terms: We don’t allow people to sue foreign governments because that would be a political mess... but what about individual government officials? Who can be held accountable for wrongs they committed and who can use a government position as a reason not to participate in a lawsuit?
Samantar’s lawyers argued that individuals who acted in the official capacity of a foreign government should be protected by FSIA (and thus not be subject to a lawsuit) because “such suits are the equivalent of a suit against the state directly.” Samantar’s attorney argued that while the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA) allows torture survivors and their families to bring claims against those who violated their human rights, that statute must be interpreted with existing immunity principles. In other words, FSIA should trump the TVPA. Samantar’s attorneys argue that if there is no explicit exception from Congress or waiver of immunity by the foreign state where a potential defendant is or was an official, no one should be able to hold that person accountable for actions taken in his or her official capacity. Samantar’s lawyers argued that the legislative history shows that the FSIA was intended to codify the common law and international law understandings of foreign governmental immunity and there is no mention of individuals because there was no dispute that the law would apply to individuals.
Attorneys for the Somalis who suffered under the Barre regime argued that the silence of the law shows Congress’ intent not to protect individuals from suit. The attorneys also noted that the TVPA was passed after FSIA and specifically gives torture victims and their families access to U.S. courts. The TVPA, they argued, imposed personal liability on individuals, including those who were acting with actual or apparent authority of the foreign state. Furthermore, if every act of a governmental official amounted to an act of the state, the cause of action under the TVPA would not exist. So the question becomes: can you torture someone and then avoid being held accountable by claiming you were acting on behalf of a foreign government when you did so?
The Deputy Solicitor General argued the Court should allow some lawsuits against individuals, while allowing the U.S. State Department to weigh in on immunity for such individuals.
Nina Totenberg gives a sneak peak at the arguments prior to arguments in Court today.
SCOTUSBlog has short podcasts of attorneys from both sides explaining their arguments.
SCOTUSBlog analysis of the arguments.
Transcript of yesterday’s argument.
Prepared with assistance from IJP Intern Christiaan Segura.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
IN THE NEWS: Arrest in U.S. of Former Warlord from Liberia
This week's arrest in New York of George Boley, Sr., an alleged former Liberian warlord, has highlighted the need to pursue prosecutions for Liberia’s past atrocities if Liberia is currently unable to do so itself. According to recent reports, Boley, Sr. is the former leader of an armed rebel group called the Liberian Peace Council (LPC), which is known to have committed rape, torture, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, and forcible recruitment during the fourteen years of armed conflict in the country that lasted until 2003.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has charged Boley, Sr. with holding invalid immigration documents and committing extrajudicial killings overseas (as an immigration violation - not as a criminal charge). Boley Sr. now faces removal from the United States. Like former President Charles Taylor, Sr., he received higher educations degrees in the United States before returning to Liberia and entering politics. In 1997, Boley Sr. made an unsuccessful bid for president of Liberia. In the last twenty years, he has traveled between the US and Liberia while raising a family in the United States.
The 60-year-old appeared before immigration officials today, February 24, and denied all charges against him. Another immigration hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2010. If Boley Sr. is found guilty of the administrative charges against him, he could be deported from the United States back to Liberia. If the judge decides to deport him, Boley Sr. says that he will request political asylum to remain in the United States.
Boley Sr. has claimed that the accusations against him are false and alleges that some Liberians who escaped the civil war used fraudulent allegations about the LPC to strengthen their applications for political asylum in the U.S. ICE is amassing and investigating the allegations of atrocities committed by the LPC under Boley’s tenure for its immigration case. ICE stated that “it will not allow the United States to be a safe haven for those trying to avoid prosecution and punishment for crimes committed in their homelands.” Further, “ICE will not relent in [its] efforts to ensure that human rights violators are brought to justice and removed from our communities.”
However, human rights advocates are calling attention to the fact that Liberia currently lacks credible justice mechanisms to prosecute serious crimes committed during its internal conflicts between 1989 and 2003. In its report last year, Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) maintained that the LPC had committed numerous human rights violations, including massacres and sexual crimes. The TRC, which is an advisory body, recommended that Boley Sr. be prosecuted, though no official action has been taken in Liberia to charge him with any crimes. The TRC's final report highlighted problems in the Liberian justice system and called for the establishment of a hybrid international-national tribunal with Liberian and foreign judges to try past crimes. However, many doubt that Boley Sr. would be brought to justice if returned to Liberia.
The inability of the Liberian justice system to adequately prosecute Boley Sr. raises questions as to the duty of the United States to hold him accountable for his violations of international law. Although at this time, neither country has criminally charged him, advocates are backing the possibility of undertaking criminal investigations against Boley Sr. in the United States.
This situation parallels the case of Charles Taylor, Jr., the American-born son of former Liberian president who is now on trial under the auspices of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. In October 2008, a Florida jury found Taylor Jr. guilty of participating in torture and conspiracy to commit torture within Liberia under a 1994 U.S. law commonly known as the Torture Statute, which implemented the United States' obligations as a State Party to the UN Convention Against Torture and which states that U.S. citizens accused of committing torturous acts overseas can be tried in a U.S. federal court. It is unclear at this time whether Boley Sr. will be charged with any crimes and the human rights abuses with which Boley Sr., a non-U.S. citizen, is accused could be prosecuted in the United States under federal laws prohibiting torture and war crimes committed abroad. What is known is that Boley Sr.’s case could have serious implications for holding human rights abusers accountable for their actions.
You can check out other entries on this blog regarding Charles Taylor, Jr. here. For other cases addressing the accountability of foreign officials in the U.S., read about the Samantar case here. On March 3, 2010, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Samantar, a former Somali government official who is believed to have overseen grave human rights violations in Somalia. The question facing the Court is whether former officials of foreign governments who commit human rights violations abroad can use the U.S. as a “safe haven” to avoid being held accountable for their crimes. Check back here for updates on developments in these and other accountability matters.
Written with assistance from International Justice Project Intern Kacey Mordecai.Tuesday, February 23, 2010
IN THE NEWS: DOJ Concludes: No Accountability for Torture Memo Attorneys
Last Friday, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) cleared Bush administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee of allegations of professional misconduct for their role in authorizing the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques, some of which are considered to be torture, both domestically and internationally.
In the now-infamous “torture memos,” Yoo and Bybee concluded that CIA interrogators could not be prosecuted for using certain interrogation tactics (some amounting to torture) unless they acted with the specific intent to inflict severe pain. Relying on a statute governing health benefits, they defined severe pain as that equivalent to “death, organ failure or serious impairment of bodily functions.” The authors of the memos also concluded that the president's war powers are practically unlimited, allowing him to, as Yoo told one OPR investigator, "order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]."
The long-awaited DOJ decision came from attorney David Margolis, a DOJ career veteran. Margolis was responsible for conducting a final review of DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") report. The report, issued on July 29, 2009, found that Yoo and Bybee wrote the legal memos with significant input from White House attorneys. The OPR report concluded that Yoo and Bybee had committed professional misconduct, and recommended that OPR's findings be referred to state bar authorities for disciplinary action and potential disbarment. For Bybee, a federal judge, the referral to state bar authorities could have also led to an impeachment inquiry.
After reviewing the OPR report, Margolis declined to adopt OPR's conclusions. Instead, he concluded that Yoo and Bybee merely exhibited "poor judgment" in providing legal authorization for the use of torture. Margolis's decision now means the DOJ will not refer Yoo or Bybee for possible disciplinary action before their respective state bar associations. It is now up to state bar disciplinary authorities to take up this issue on their own.
This about-face demonstrates why Attorney General Eric Holder must appoint an independent prosecutor -- someone unaffiliated with the DOJ, the department responsible for the legal authorization of detainee abuse policies -- to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the origins of those policies. Americans deserve to know whether, and to what extent, publicly-elected officials were involved in unlawful conduct.
In the now-infamous “torture memos,” Yoo and Bybee concluded that CIA interrogators could not be prosecuted for using certain interrogation tactics (some amounting to torture) unless they acted with the specific intent to inflict severe pain. Relying on a statute governing health benefits, they defined severe pain as that equivalent to “death, organ failure or serious impairment of bodily functions.” The authors of the memos also concluded that the president's war powers are practically unlimited, allowing him to, as Yoo told one OPR investigator, "order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]."
The long-awaited DOJ decision came from attorney David Margolis, a DOJ career veteran. Margolis was responsible for conducting a final review of DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR") report. The report, issued on July 29, 2009, found that Yoo and Bybee wrote the legal memos with significant input from White House attorneys. The OPR report concluded that Yoo and Bybee had committed professional misconduct, and recommended that OPR's findings be referred to state bar authorities for disciplinary action and potential disbarment. For Bybee, a federal judge, the referral to state bar authorities could have also led to an impeachment inquiry.
After reviewing the OPR report, Margolis declined to adopt OPR's conclusions. Instead, he concluded that Yoo and Bybee merely exhibited "poor judgment" in providing legal authorization for the use of torture. Margolis's decision now means the DOJ will not refer Yoo or Bybee for possible disciplinary action before their respective state bar associations. It is now up to state bar disciplinary authorities to take up this issue on their own.
This about-face demonstrates why Attorney General Eric Holder must appoint an independent prosecutor -- someone unaffiliated with the DOJ, the department responsible for the legal authorization of detainee abuse policies -- to conduct a full and impartial investigation into the origins of those policies. Americans deserve to know whether, and to what extent, publicly-elected officials were involved in unlawful conduct.
The DOJ report and related documents are available here.
Monday, February 15, 2010
REFLECTION: The Civil Judgment against Taylor Jr. - What does it mean?
On February 5, 2010, while preparing for what has been called the "snowpocalypse" here in Washington, DC, we at Human Rights USA learned that the Court in our civil case against Charles Taylor, Jr. ("Taylor Jr.") had awarded a total of $22.4 million in damages to our five clients for the atrocities they endured at the hands of Taylor Jr. and the Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU) forces under his command. As we shared the exciting news with our clients, colleagues, and the media, we faced the question: "What does this decision mean? What does it mean to the plaintiffs – to the legal community – to potential defendants – and to the world?"
Law students at the University of Pittsburgh invited us to comment on exactly these questions. To read our responses as they appear in the JURIST Hotline section of the school's online journal, click here.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Spanish court to investigate Guantanamo torture allegations
Last May, we reported that a Spanish court was considering whether to open an investigation into the role of six Bush administration attorneys allegedly responsible for constructing a legal framework for detainee torture. At the same time the court was considering that petition, it was also debating whether to investigate allegations of torture, abuse, and inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted upon four former Guantanamo detainees. This post provides an update on the status of the Spanish court's deliberations with respect to the latter case.
Last year, Spain's National Court received complaints filed by a number of organizations regarding abuse allegedly inflicted upon four former Guantanamo detainees, including one Spanish citizen and three individuals apparently connected to Spain.
After receiving the complaints, but before opening an investigation, Judge Baltasar Garzon asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to inform him whether the U.S. government planned to investigate these allegations itself. (Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, Spain can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a case involving the commission of serious human rights crimes by U.S. citizens only if the U.S. government refuses, or fails, to take action.)
After waiting seven months with no reply, Judge Garzon has now decided to open an investigation into the abuses inflicted upon the four former detainees.
At a time when the Obama administration has failed to take significant steps towards investigating the numerous claims of detainee abuse and torture alleged over the past several years, Judge Garzon's decision represents a bold step toward accountability for human rights violations.
At the same time, Judge Garzon's decision should serve as a reminder to the Obama administration of its own obligation, under international law, to investigate and prosecute serious human rights abuses. Under universal jurisdiction principles, Judge Garzon is able to pursue this investigation because the U.S. government has so far refused, or failed, to take action.
Despite the administration's purported commitment to transparency and accountability, it has failed to apply these principles in the area of human rights.
Last year, Spain's National Court received complaints filed by a number of organizations regarding abuse allegedly inflicted upon four former Guantanamo detainees, including one Spanish citizen and three individuals apparently connected to Spain.
After receiving the complaints, but before opening an investigation, Judge Baltasar Garzon asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to inform him whether the U.S. government planned to investigate these allegations itself. (Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, Spain can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a case involving the commission of serious human rights crimes by U.S. citizens only if the U.S. government refuses, or fails, to take action.)
After waiting seven months with no reply, Judge Garzon has now decided to open an investigation into the abuses inflicted upon the four former detainees.
At a time when the Obama administration has failed to take significant steps towards investigating the numerous claims of detainee abuse and torture alleged over the past several years, Judge Garzon's decision represents a bold step toward accountability for human rights violations.
At the same time, Judge Garzon's decision should serve as a reminder to the Obama administration of its own obligation, under international law, to investigate and prosecute serious human rights abuses. Under universal jurisdiction principles, Judge Garzon is able to pursue this investigation because the U.S. government has so far refused, or failed, to take action.
Despite the administration's purported commitment to transparency and accountability, it has failed to apply these principles in the area of human rights.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Civil Trial of Charles Taylor, Jr.: Closing Arguments
The civil trial of Charles Taylor, Jr. concluded yesterday with closing arguments from the defendant. In his closing, Taylor Jr. discussed the Liberian conflict and maintained that he could not have committed the atrocities with which he has been charged (and, in the criminal case, convicted). He stated, "I do believe some form of abuse took place [during the Liberian war]" but claimed the abuses were "without [his] participation or knowledge." With Taylor Jr.'s statement, the trial on damages in this civil case comes to a close. Thank you to those of you following this case and supporting our work to hold accountable those who violate human rights. Check back at this site for developments in this and other matters.
For media coverage, click here. (Clarification: Troy Elder is a Professor at FIU, not an attorney with Human Rights USA. As local counsel, Professor Elder and students from the FIU clinic also represented the plaintiffs in this case.)
For media coverage, click here. (Clarification: Troy Elder is a Professor at FIU, not an attorney with Human Rights USA. As local counsel, Professor Elder and students from the FIU clinic also represented the plaintiffs in this case.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
