DOCSLIB.ORG

General Assembly Distr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Assembly Distr UNITED A NATIONS General Assembly Distr. GENERAL A/HRC/4/33 15 January 2007 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Fourth session Item 2 of the provisional agenda IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251 OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL” Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak GE.07-10215 (E) 190107 A/HRC/4/33 page 2 Summary The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment submits his first report to the Human Rights Council. Section II summarizes the activities of the Special Rapporteur undertaken between August and December 2006 (i.e. the period since the submission of his interim report to the General Assembly, document A/61/259), including updates on country visits to the Russian Federation and Paraguay, future visits and pending requests for invitations, and highlights of key presentations and meetings. In Section III, the Special Rapporteur discusses the obligation of States parties to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to establish universal jurisdiction. The Special Rapporteur notes that, with few exceptions, States remain reluctant to make use of their rights and obligations to exercise universal jurisdiction. The Special Rapporteur discusses recent practice and the developments related to the case of the ex-dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré. Given that impunity is one of the main reasons for the widespread practice of torture in all regions of the world, he calls upon States to exercise universal jurisdiction to fight impunity and deny torturers any safe haven in the world. Section IV contains a discussion on the importance of cooperation between the Special Rapporteur and regional mechanisms established to combat torture. Section V discusses the right of victims of torture to a remedy. The summary of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur from 16 December 2005 to 15 December 2006 and the replies received thereto from Governments by 31 December 2006 are found in addendum 1 to the present report. Addendum 2 contains a summary of the information provided by Governments and non-governmental organizations on implementation of recommendations of the Special Rapporteur following country visits. Addendum 3 is the report of the country visit to Jordan, and addendums 4 and 5 contain preliminary notes on the missions to Paraguay and Sri Lanka, respectively. A/HRC/4/33 page 3 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 - 3 4 II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ..................... 4 - 40 4 III. THE OBLIGATION OF STATES PARTIES TO ESTABLISH UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE AUT DEDERE AUT IUDICARE ............................. 41 - 47 11 IV. COOPERATION WITH REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ....... 48 - 60 15 V. THE RIGHT OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE TO A REMEDY AND REPARATION ................................................................... 61 - 68 20 A/HRC/4/33 page 4 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Manfred Nowak, hereby submits his first report to the Human Rights Council, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251. 2. Section II summarizes the activities of the Special Rapporteur undertaken between August and December 2006 (i.e. the period since the submission of his interim report to the General Assembly, document A/61/259). In Section III, the Special Rapporteur discusses the obligation of States parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Convention) to establish universal jurisdiction, and Section IV contains a discussion on regional cooperation. Section V discusses the right of victims of torture to a remedy. In particular, the Special Rapporteur points to the obligation of States under article 14 of the Convention against Torture to, among other things, pay the costs of rehabilitation. He calls for the development of mechanisms whereby States found to be systematic violators would contribute to funds such as the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. 3. The summary of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur from 16 December 2005 to 15 December 2006 and the replies received thereto from Governments by 31 December 2006 are found in addendum 1 to the present report. Addendum 2 contains a summary of the information provided by Governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on implementation of recommendations of the Special Rapporteur following country visits. Addendum 3 is the report of the country visit to Jordan, and addendums 4 and 5 contain preliminary notes on the missions to Paraguay and Sri Lanka, respectively. II. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 4. The Special Rapporteur draws the attention of the Council to his second interim report to the General Assembly (A/61/259, paras. 6-43), in which he described his activities for the period from January to July 2006 (i.e. the period since the submission of his report to the Commission on Human Rights, document E/CN.4/2006/6 and addenda). The Special Rapporteur would like to inform the Council about the key activities he has undertaken since the submission of his report to the General Assembly, i.e. during the period August to December 2006. Communications concerning human rights violations 5. During the period 16 December 2005-15 December 2006, the Special Rapporteur sent 79 letters of allegations of torture to 35 Governments and 157 urgent appeals to 60 Governments on behalf of persons who might be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Country visits Jordan 6. The Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to Jordan from 25 to 29 June 2006 and draws attention to the full report, including his findings and recommendations, contained in A/HRC/4/33 page 5 addendum 3. He expresses his appreciation to the Government for the full cooperation it extended to him. Consistent and credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment were brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur, particularly with respect to the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) for the purpose of obtaining confessions and intelligence in pursuit of counter-terrorism and national security objectives, and within the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) to extract confessions in the course of routine criminal investigations. On the basis of all the evidence gathered, including the consistency and credibility of the allegations, the denial of the possibility of assessing these allegations by means of private interviews with detainees in the GID, taking into account the deliberate attempts by the officials to obstruct his work in the CID and the forensic evidence obtained, the Special Rapporteur confirms that the practice of torture is routine in the GID and the CID. With respect to conditions of detention in prisons and pretrial detention centres, the Special Rapporteur found that the Al-Jafr Correction and Rehabilitation Centre was in fact a punishment centre, where detainees were routinely beaten and subjected to corporal punishment amounting to torture. The conditions in other Correction and Rehabilitation Centres were found to be more humane, although he continued to receive credible reports of regular beatings and other forms of corporal punishment by prison officials there. No allegations of ill-treatment were received in the Juweidah (Female) Correction and Rehabilitation Centre, though he remains critical of the policy of holding females in “protective” detention, under the provisions of the 1954 Crime Prevention Law, because they are at risk of becoming victims of honour crimes. The Special Rapporteur concludes that the practice of torture persists in Jordan because of a lack of awareness of the problem and because of institutionalized impunity. The heads of the security forces and of the detention facilities he visited denied any knowledge of torture, despite having been presented with substantiated allegations. Moreover, in practice the provisions and safeguards laid out in Jordanian law to combat torture and ill-treatment are meaningless because the security services are effectively shielded from independent and public criminal prosecution and judicial scrutiny. The fact that no official has ever been prosecuted for torture under article 208 of the Penal Code underlines this conclusion. In view of the commitment of the Government to human rights, the Special Rapporteur is confident that every effort will be made to implement the recommendations in his report. To this end, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the recent implementation of his recommendation to close the Al-Jafr Correction and Rehabilitation Centre. Iraq 7. The Special Rapporteur recalls that on 1 and 2 July 2006, following his country visit to Jordan, he met in Amman with Iraqi torture victims and NGOs from different regions of Iraq, as well as representatives of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) in order to gather information about the situation of torture there. Meetings were also held by video-link with representatives of NGOs, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights and UNAMI staff in Baghdad. Despite widespread and continuing media coverage, the Iraqi NGOs expressed their frustration at the current situation and appealed for the United Nations and other international entities to pay greater attention to the human rights situation in Iraq, and for the urgent intervention
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No Justice, No Peace: Accountability for Rape and Gender-Based Violence in the Former Yugoslavia Women in the Law Project
    Hastings Women’s Law Journal Volume 5 | Number 1 Article 5 1-1-1994 No Justice, No Peace: Accountability for Rape and Gender-Based Violence in the Former Yugoslavia Women in the Law Project Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hwlj Recommended Citation Women in the Law Project, No Justice, No Peace: Accountability for Rape and Gender-Based Violence in the Former Yugoslavia, 5 Hastings Women's L.J. 89 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hwlj/vol5/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Women’s Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ii!. No Justice, No Peace: Accountability for Rape and Gender-Based Violence in the Former Yugoslavia Based on a Mission of the Women in the Law Project of the International Human Rights Law Group* PREFACE The Women in the Law Project of the International Human Rights Law Group (Law Group) sponsored a delegation to the former Yugoslavia from February 14 to 22, 1993. The delegation, which was also endorsed by the Bar Association of San Francisco, had two principal objectives. First, the delegation provided training in human rights fact-finding methodology to local organizations documenting rape and other violations of international law committed in the context of the armed conflict in Bos­ nia-Herzegovina (Bosnia) and in Croatia. This part of the delegation's activities, undertaken in consultation with the United Nations Commission of Experts, I sought to enhance the thoroughness of local documentation * Delegation Members: Laurel Fletcher, Esq.; Professor Karen Musalo; Professor Diane Orentlicher, Chair; Kathleen Pratt, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • 1985-Nicaragua-Abuses Against Civilians by Counterrevolutionaries
    REPORT and Prof. MICHAEL J. GLENNON to the INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP and the WASHINGTON OFFICE ON LATIN AMERICA concerning ---- ---- ---- ABUSES AGAINST CIVILIANS BY COUNTERREVOLUTIONARIES OPERATING IN NICARAGUA APRIL 1985 Copies of this report are available for $6.00 from the following organizations: Washington Office on Latin America 110 Maryland Avenue, NE Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 544-8045 International Human Rights Law Group 1346 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington D.C. 20036 (202) 659-5023 Q 1985 by the Washington Office on Latin America and the International Human Rights Law Group All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States TABLE OF CONTENTS -Page Preface...................................... i Statement of Sponsoring Organizations.. ...... iii Repor t of Donald T. Fox and Michael J. Glennon A. Introduction............................. 1 B. Background.............. ................. 3 C. Methodology........ ....................... 7 D. Findings .................................. 13 1. Sandinistas........................... 13 2. Contras............................... 14 3. United States Government .............. 20 F. Recommendations........................... 24 G. Final Thoughts.............. ............... 25 Appendices I. Terms of Reference and Biographies of Mr. Fox and Professor Glennon 11. Itinerary 111. Statements of Selected Individuals IV. Common Article 111 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 PREFACE As part of their respective programs, the Inter national Human Rights Law Gcoup (Law G~oup)and the Washington Off ice on Latin America (WOLA) organized a delegation to visit Nicaragua to investigate and to report on allegations of abuses against the civilian population by the counterrevolutionary forces (Contras) f'ighting the Nicar aguan government. The delegation consisted of &. Donald FOX, senior partner in the New York law firm of FOX, Glynn and Melamed, and Mr. Michael Glennon, professor at the University of Cincinnati Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling with the Psyche: Does Prosecuting Human Rights Violators Console Their Victims?
    VOLUME 46, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2005 Gambling with the Psyche: Does Prosecuting Human Rights Violators Console Their Victims? Jamie O'Connell* INTRODUCTION Legal action against those accused of committing brutal violations of hu- man rights has flourished in the last decade. Saddam Hussein awaits trial in Iraq.' Augusto Pinochet, Chile's former military leader, has been pursued by European and Chilean prosecuting judges since Spain's Balthasar Garz6n sought his extradition for murder in October 1998.2 Meanwhile, at the Interna- tional Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY"), Slobodan Mil- 3 osevic is preparing his defense against charges of genocide and war crimes. Even U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, with other senior officials, has been accused in a privately filed criminal complaint in Germany of being responsible for the torture of prisoners held in Iraq.4 Such legal actions were almost unimaginable a decade ago. These are only the most prominent cases. A dozen senior Baathist officials face prosecution by Iraq's new government. 5 In Argentina, a 2001 court rul- ing abrogated laws giving immunity to military officers who oversaw and participated in the kidnapping and secret execution ("disappearance") of as * Clinical Advocacy Fellow, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School; J.D., Yale Law School, 2002. I could not have written this Article without help from therapists and lawyers who work directly with survivors of traumatic violations of human rights. Mary Fabri, Rosa Garcia-Peltoniemi, Jerry Gray, Hank Greenspan, Judith Herman, Douglas Johnson, Dori Laub, Beth Stephens, Noga Tarnopolsky, and Alan Tieger gave me insights unavailable in any published source I could find.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting a Dictator As a Transnational Legal Process: the Internalization Problem and the Hissène Habré Case
    Pace International Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 Winter 2012 Article 6 January 2012 Hunting a Dictator as a Transnational Legal Process: The Internalization Problem and the Hissène Habré Case Caleb J. Stevens Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Recommended Citation Caleb J. Stevens, Hunting a Dictator as a Transnational Legal Process: The Internalization Problem and the Hissène Habré Case, 24 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 190 (2012) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol24/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUNTING A DICTATOR AS A TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL PROCESS: THE INTERNALIZATION PROBLEM AND THE HISSÈNE HABRÉ CASE Caleb J. Stevens* “So if the question is ‘why do nations obey international law?’, my answer would be: Nations obey because of people like us— lawyers and citizens who care about international law, who choose not to leave the law at the water’s edge, who do their utmost to ‘bring international law home.’”1 -Harold Hongju Koh ABSTRACT Transnational legal process theory suffers from an internalization problem: it does not adequately explain why international legal norms are internalized. This article addresses the gap by analyzing the Habré case in Senegal as an example of transnational legal process. Utilizing speech act and securitization theories, I argue that internalization can be partly explained by three factors of agency: (1) the validity of the claim, (2) linguistic competence, and (3) discursive strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Jailhouse Lawyer's Manual
    A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual Immigration and Consular Access Supplement to the Seventh Edition Columbia Human Rights Law Review 2007 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW 2006-2007 EDITORIAL BOARD 2006–2007 Editor-in-Chief Mary Kelly Persyn Executive Editor JLM Editor-in-Chief Susan Maples Emma Freudenberger Managing Editors Business Editor JLM Executive Editors Nicole Altman Benjamin Edwards Dynishal Gross Emily Miyamoto Faber Sydney Bird Levin Patrick Somers SJLM Executive Editor Gráinne O'Neill Kimberly Sánchez Articles Editors Journal Production Editor JLM Chapter Editors Lazar Bloch Dafina Stewart Damaris Acosta Brian Ginsberg Erin Dittus Sean Murray Submissions/Notes Editors Anya Emerson Naureen Shah Whitney Russell Dougherty Natasha M. Korgaonkar Jennifer Stark Samantha Harper Noelle Kvasnosky JLM Production Editor Development Sydney Tarzwell Adam Shajnfeld Elana Pollak Drew Rabe STAFF EDITORS Anne-Carmene Almonord Daeyna Grant Seth Rosenbloom Julia Barke Megan Haberle Michelle M. Rutherford Rachel Barish Daniel Harris Lisa Sachs Dorian Berger Colleen Hobson Laura Lisa Sandoval Katie Brandes Elizabeth Howell Kristina Schwartz Eddie Bruce-Jones Marques Mathews Mainon Schwartz Zaneta Butscher Tanaz Moghadam Jon Sherman Zern-shun Chen Gina Moon M. Beth Morales Singh Johanna Coats Priyanka Motaparthy Kristen Smith Kaitlin Cordes Mary Beth Myles Karthik Srinivasan Amy Dieterich Won Park Ariane Vinograd Meredith Duffy Suzannah Phillips Aisha Weaver Christine Ely Madhu Pocha Melody Wells Derek Ettinger Laboni Rahman Margaret Winterkorn- Meghan Gallagher Ikhlas Rashid Meikle Mia Gonzalez Martha Rodenborn Alison Wright Chiara Grabill Ted Roethke Kimberly Zafran BOARD OF ADVISORS Mark Barenberg Philip Genty James S. Liebman Barbara Black Harvey Goldschmid Michael Ratner John Boston Jack Greenberg Peter Rosenblum Reed Brody Louis Henkin Susan Sturm Katherine Franke Copyright © 2007 by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Viewer's Guide
    DEADLY MISTAKES? Viewer Guide Walter Miale DEADLY MISTAKES? Viewer Guide Walter Miale This Guide accompanies the Deadly Mistakes? DVD's from Bullfrog Films: http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/dm.html For further information on Deadly Mistakes? and Democracy Dialogues: http://www.greenworldcenter.org 4 DEADLY MISTAKES? Viewer Guide Acknowledgements Thanks to those who consulted with me in the preparation of this Guide: Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, Bruce Blair of the Center for Defense Information, Philip Brenner, Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch, Noam Chomsky, Erik K. Gustafson of tthe Education for Peace in Iraq Center, Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy, Peter Kornbluh of National Security Archive, Steven Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Malea Lazu of the Institute for Policy Studies, Carl LeVan, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, Amy Quinn of the Institute for Policy Studies, Marcus Raskin of the Institute for Policy Studies, Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institute, and Peter Weiss of the Lawyers Committee for Nuclear Policy. Needless to say, any errors or shortcomings in the Guide are mine, not theirs. Thanks also to the authors and editors who allowed me to use their material: Peter Davis, Joshua L. Dratel, Jim Hershberg, Jim Lobe, Ray McGovern, Glen Pedersen, and Matthew Rothschild. And especially heartfelt thanks to Art Nuko for his painting of Uncle Sam at the crossroads. I would welcome, and will publish in future editions of this Guide or on the Deadly Mistakes? web pages, comments and suggestions for other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • How Reagan Promoted Genocide by Robert Parry, February 21, 2013, Promoted-Genocide
    Rights Action May 9, 2013 UPDATE: Genocide Trial In Guatemala Closing arguments were made today (May 9, 2013) in the genocide trial against retired Generals Rios Montt and Rodriguez Sanchez in Guatemala City. The prosecution has asked for a 75 year prison sentence for the two generals. A decision is pending. Assuredly there are more legal manipulations and trickery to come; assuredly there will be more appeals and motions to strike. Tensions and threats of repression remain very high in Guatemala. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR OWN MEMBER OF CONGRESS and insist that they and the U.S. government make on-going public statements in support of the rule of law in Guatemala, in support of the genocide trial and in support of all trials against the material and intellectual authors of war crimes, crimes against humanity and human rights violations. MORE INFORMATION ON TRIAL: http://www.riosmontt-trial.org/ ******* ARTICLE: How Reagan Promoted Genocide By Robert Parry, February 21, 2013, http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/21/how-reagan- promoted-genocide/ [Special Report: A newly discovered document reveals that President Reagan and his national security team in 1981 approved Guatemala’s extermination of both leftist guerrillas and their “civilian support mechanisms,” a green light that opened a path to genocide against hundreds of Mayan villages, reports Robert Parry.] Soon after taking office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s national security team agreed to supply military aid to the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating not only “Marxist guerrillas” but their “civilian support mechanisms,” according to a newly disclosed document from the National Archives.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Clippings
    SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE PRESS CLIPPINGS Enclosed are clippings of local and international press on the Special Court and related issues obtained by the Outreach and Public Affairs Office as at: Friday, 9 August 2013 Press clips are produced Monday through Friday. Any omission, comment or suggestion, please contact Martin Royston-Wright Ext 7217 2 Local News Sierra Leone Deports Former Taylor Associates Days Before Trial / Independent Observer Page 3 Questions and Answers on Ibrahim Bah/Balde / The Voice Page 4 International News Accused arms dealer Richard Chichakli faces US court / Associated Press Pages 5-6 Chad: To Trap a Dictator / Human Rights Watch Pages 7-10 3 Independent Observer Friday, 9 August 2013 4 The Voice Friday, 9 August 2013 5 Associated Press Friday, 9 August 2013 Accused arms dealer Richard Chichakli faces US court A MAN extradited from Australia to the US will represent himself on charges he conspired with a notorious Russian arms dealer to buy planes to move weapons to the world's bloodiest conflicts. At a pretrial conference in New York today, Syrian-born Richard Chichakli told US District Judge William H Pauley III that he will represent himself at his November trial. The 53-year-old is accused of conspiring with arms dealers including former Soviet air officer Viktor Bout, who's dubbed the Merchant of Death. Chichakli, a US citizen, had been living in Melbourne under an alias and working as a cleaner for almost three years before authorities arrested him in January. Richard Chichakli, arrested in Melbourne, is accused of being an associate of notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Violations by Canadian Companies Abroad: Choc V Hudbay Minerals Inc Susana C
    Western Journal of Legal Studies Volume 5 | Issue 1 Article 3 2014 Human Rights Violations by Canadian Companies Abroad: Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc Susana C. Mijares Peña University of Western Ontario, Law Faculty, [email protected] Recommended Citation Susana C. Mijares Peña, "Human Rights Violations by Canadian Companies Abroad: Choc v Hudbay Minerals Inc", (2014) 5:1 online: UWO J Leg Stud 3 Book Review: Defending Battered Women on Trial Abstract Canadian mining corporations operating abroad represent a challenge to the international legal system and Canadian legal system in the field of human rights. Currently, there are no legal mechanisms available to ensure that these corporations abide by international standards and voluntary codes. For this reason, some argue that Canadian courts should be more active in holding Canadian companies accountable for the human rights violations of their affiliates operating abroad. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision of Choc v Hudbay Minerals suggests that for the first time, a Canadian court is ready to play a regulatory role in preventing and remedying human rights violations committed abroad by Canadian corporations. The victims in this case are claiming direct negligence in tort by Hudbay Minerals for its subsidiary’s actions in Guatemala, which resulted in human rights abuses against members of the Q’eqchi’ Mayan Community. This paper argues in favour of direct negligence in tort as a remedy for victims of human rights violations by foreign subsidiaries of Canadian corporations. Keywords Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc, human rights abuses committed abroad, Canadian mining corporations, foreign subsidiaries, accountability, corporate criminal liability, mining, corporate, copyright, negligence, Latin America, UN, United Nations, international law, corporate veil, risk management Mijares Peña: Choc v Hudbay HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY CANADIAN COMPANIES ABROAD: CHOC V HUDBAY MINERALS INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript: Confronting Challenges to the Pinochet Precedent
    *TRANSCRIPT* Confronting Challenges to the Pinochet Precedent And the Globalization of Justice A roundtable discussion sponsored by the American University Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Institute for Policy Studies February 3, 2004 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. American University Washington College of Law, Rm. 603 Washington, D.C. Special thanks to IPS interns Elinor Douglass and Andrea Phillips for transcribing assistance. For more information on the Washington College of Law or the Institute for Policy Studies’ Pinochet Case Project, see: <www.wcl.american.edu>, <www.tni.org/pinochet>, <www.ips-dc.org> PARTICIPANT BIOS Reed Brody, Esq.: Reed Brody is Special Counsel for Prosecutions at Human Rights Watch. He initiated and coordinates the prosecution in Senegal of the former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré. He directed HRW’s intervention in the case of Augusto Pinochet in Britain’s House of Lords. Mr. Brody teaches a class on accountability for atrocities at Columbia Law School. He is co-editor of The Pinochet Papers: The Case of Augusto Pinochet in the British and Spanish Courts (Kluwer, 2000) and author of HRW’s The Pinochet Precedent: How Victims Can Pursue Human Rights Criminals Abroad (2000). Previously, he led United Nations teams investigating massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo and observing human rights in El Salvador. In 1995-1996, he coordinated an international legal team convened by President Aristide to prosecute human rights crimes in Haiti. He was Director of the International Human Rights Law Group and Executive Secretary of the International Commission of Jurists.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS the Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH
    United States HUMAN Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org July 2011 ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 I. Background: Official Sanction for Crimes against Detainees .......................................... 13 II. Torture of Detainees in US Counterterrorism Operations ............................................... 18 The CIA Detention Program .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 42Nd Session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 1991 The 42nd Session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Reed Brody Maureen Convery David Weissbrodt University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Reed Brody, Maureen Convery, and David Weissbrodt, The 42nd Session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 13 HUM. RTS. Q. 260 (1991), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/405. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY The 42nd Session of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities by Reed Brody, Maureen Convery, and David Weissbrodt The UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities began its forty-second session' on 6 August 1990 under unusual pressure; meeting four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it faced a tense world situation with an overcrowded agenda of studies and human rights violations in particular countries. In addition the Sub-Commission had to address criticism from some members of its parent body, the Commission 1. The official report of the 42nd session is found in U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/59 (1990) (hereinafter 1990 Report).
    [Show full text]