- Page 1 of 2
April 30, 2018
As the semester winds down and graduation gets near, we’re missing the calming presence of Katherine Young, until recently HRP’s Program Manager, whose expertise guided us through so many milestones for nearly four years.
She’s moved on to something particularly exciting—a job as a researcher with Control Arms, a coalition that works to end the flow of arms and ammunition that fuel conflict, poverty and human rights abuses. This seems only fitting. Even as she seamlessly coordinated the many moving parts of our program—including supporting dozens of students and managing HRP’s budget—Katherine also steeped herself in the field of human rights advocacy.
It was not her job to do it. She did it because it interested her. And she did it because she cared.
As the undisputed champion of proofreading at HRP, Katherine often found herself immersed in the language of human rights. But as she read, she spent an equal amount of time processing the substance of the reports and amicus curaie briefs and legal memorandums that crossed her desk. As a result, she developed a deep knowledge of many of the Clinic’s areas of focus, from business and human rights to accountability litigation to armed conflict and civilian protection.
It goes without saying that Control Arms will be tremendously lucky to have her. Curious and kind-hearted, with a sharp sense of humor and a warm and welcoming way, Katherine is a gift to any community. We wish her the best of luck on this new path, and send her off with an HRP tradition: a fake press release from Bonnie Docherty, who was a journalist in her previous life.
KATHERINE QUITS TO CAT AROUND CATSKILL
Human Rights Program Disarmed by Young’s Departure
(Cambridge, MA, April 5, 2018)—Katherine Talbot Young, the Human Rights Program’s center of sanity, is leaving Cambridge for the Catskills, the Human Rights Program (HRP) announced with dismay today.
April 17, 2018
April 18, 2018
Judicial Legal Officers in International Courts and Tribunals
12:00- 1:00 p.m.
When considering actors within international criminal tribunals, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys readily come to mind. Often overlooked figures are legal officers working in Judges Chambers. Legal officers play a vital role in assisting investigations, managing pre-trial dockets, and drafting judgments. Priyanka Chirimar, Visiting Fellow at the Human Rights Program and OPIA Wasserstein Fellow-in-Residence, has served as a legal officer for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. She will discuss legal officers’ core duties, ethical obligations and challenges, and their role in norm building.
Sponsored by the Human Rights Program and the Office of Public Interest Advising.
April 16, 2018
This piece by Bonnie Docherty, Associate Director of Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection, originally ran in The Guardian, under the headline “We’re Running Out of Time to Stop Killer Robots”
It’s five years this month since the launch of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a global coalition of non-governmental groups calling for a ban on fully autonomous weapons. This month also marks the fifth time that countries have convened at the United Nations in Geneva to address the problems these weapons would pose if they were developed and put into use.
The countries meeting in Geneva this week are party to a major disarmament treaty called the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While some diplomatic progress has been made under that treaty’s auspices since 2013, the pace needs to pick up dramatically. Countries that recognise the dangers of fully autonomous weapons cannot wait another five years if they are to prevent the weapons from becoming a reality.
Fully autonomous weapons, which would select and engage targets without meaningful human control, do not yet exist, but scientists have warned they soon could. Precursors have already been developed or deployed as autonomy has become increasingly common on the battlefield. Hi-tech military powers, including China, Israel, Russia, South Korea, the UK and the US, have invested heavily in the development of autonomous weapons. So far there is no specific international law to halt this trend.
Experts have sounded the alarm, emphasising that fully autonomous weapons raise a host of concerns. For many people, allowing machines that cannot appreciate the value of human life to make life-and-death decisions crosses a moral red line.
Legally, the so-called “killer robots” would lack human judgment, meaning that it would be very challenging to ensure that their decisions complied with international humanitarian and human rights law. For example, a robot could not be preprogrammed to assess the proportionality of using force in every situation, and it would find it difficult to judge accurately whether civilian harm outweighed military advantage in each particular instance.
Fully autonomous weapons also raise the question: who would be responsible for attacks that violate these laws if a human did not make the decision to fire on a specific target? In fact, it would be legally difficult and potentially unfair to hold anyone responsible for unforeseeable harm to civilians. Continue Reading…
April 13, 2018
Spotlight Feature: Clinic team help hold Bolivian ex-leaders responsible for killings in historic case
Posted by Cara Solomon
This post originally ran on the Harvard Law Today homepage under the title, “After a decade of tireless fighting, a measure of justice.”
When the verdict came down, most of the litigation team was in the second row of the courtroom, leaning forward, tense with the waiting, trembling at times. But Thomas Becker ’08, was in the front row beside the plaintiffs, his arm around the shoulders of Felicidad Rosa Huanca Quispe, whose father was shot dead in the street all those years ago.
There was no other place for him to be. He had spent the past decade on and off in Bolivia, working in partnership with the plaintiffs–attending victims’ association meetings, tracking down witnesses, investigating leads. They were not only his inspiration. They were also his friends.
When Mamani, et al. v. Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín reached Federal District Court last month, it had already made history: the first time a living former head of state faced his accusers in a human rights case in U.S. court. Now, as the judge read the verdict form, Becker found the words hard to believe.
Had the jury really just found two of the most powerful men in Bolivian history liable for the extrajudicial killings of eight indigenous people–and awarded the plaintiffs $10 million in damages?
With more than 25 witnesses and hundreds of pages of evidence, the case against Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and Carlos Sánchez Berzaín seemed clear—how they had deployed massive military force to quash protests, leading to scores of civilian deaths. Still, Becker turned around for reassurance from Susan Farbstein ’04 and Tyler Giannini, co-directors of the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC), which was co-counsel in the litigation from the start.
“Susan was smiling with tears running down her face, and Tyler was nodding in his Zen-like way,” said Becker. “And I knew that after a decade of tireless fighting, the plaintiffs had gotten some form of justice.”
In the summer of 2006, Becker was a rising 2L, living in Bolivia, and immersed in the social justice movement around “Black October,” the military violence that killed more than 50 and injured more than 400 in the fall of 2003.
The fight for accountability was already well underway, and would later lead to the Trial of Responsibilities, which found five members of the Military High Command guilty for their role in the killings. But the men who had unleashed the military on civilians—Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín—had fled to the United States in the aftermath of the violence, and lived there ever since.
At some point, Becker remembered something he’d learned about in his 1L year. It was called the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), and it allowed people to sue in U.S. courts for human rights violations. What if lawyers in the United States could use it to help the victims’ associations here get some justice for their loved ones?
He reached out to experts in ATS litigation—Paul Hoffman, Judith Chomsky, and Giannini—to see what was feasible.
For Giannini, it felt reminiscent of another long-shot ATS case: Doe v. Unocal, brought by Burmese villagers against the company for human rights abuses related to a gas pipeline project. Back in 1995, when the organization he co-founded, EarthRights International, decided to sue a corporation for human rights violations, the reception was less than enthusiastic.
“People thought we were nuts,” he said.
But Giannini served as co-counsel on that case for a decade, right up until it settled. So when Becker called with the idea of suing the president of Bolivia, he had a receptive audience: this was not a litigator put off by long odds.
April 11, 2018
April 12, 2018
Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the European Union
12:00- 1:00 p.m.
Dr. Steven Greer, Professor of Human Rights at the University of Bristol Law School, will discuss his new book, which examines the complex regional arrangements in Europe for the protection of human rights, where bodies of the European Union and the larger Council of Europe interact both as partners and competitors. He and his co-authors show how the institutionalization of human rights has contributed to securing minimum standards across Europe. They consider the central challenges to these institutions and how they could be managed, particularly for the U.K. in the post-Brexit era. Professor Greer will be joined by his co-authors, Professor Janneke Gerards from Utrecht University School of Law, and Rosie Slowe, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Bristol Law School.
April 10, 2018
Understanding Victim Assistance and Environmental Remediation Under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Posted by Bonnie Docherty
The humanitarian impact of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) depends on both its comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons and its obligations to assist victims and remediate the environment affected by use and testing. The former aims to prevent future harm, while the latter addresses harm that has already occurred.
The Clinic is releasing new papers on victim assistance and environmental remediation in order to increase awareness of these elements of the treaty. The short publications provide an overview of the provisions in the TPNW and guidance from other humanitarian disarmament treaties as to how they might be implemented.
The TPNW’s so-called “positive obligations” establish a framework of shared state responsibility for helping victims and cleaning the contaminated environment
During last year’s treaty negotiations at the United Nations, the Clinic worked closely with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. A team from the Clinic, along with advocates from Article 36, Mines Action Canada, and Pace University, played a leading role in ensuring that the treaty included the positive obligations.
April 10, 2018
April 11, 2018
Crimes Against Humanity in Mexico?
12:00- 1:00 p.m.
For a country that is not engaged in a conflict, statistics on homicide, enforced disappearances, and the use of torture in Mexico are staggering. Jimena Reyes, Director for the Americas at the International Federation for Human Rights and Visiting Fellow at the Human Rights Program, has documented these crimes and argued that some of these can be considered crimes against humanity. Examining the collusion between the Zetas drug cartel and the authorities in Coahuila, Reyes will explore the legal issues at stake and the political obstacles for accountability of those crimes including through an International Criminal Court investigation.
Co-sponsored by the Harvard University Mexican Association of Students and the Mexican Law Students Association.
April 9, 2018
April 10, 2018
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Protection of LGBTQI Rights
12:00- 1:00 p.m.
Lunch will be provided
Please join HLS Lambda for a discussion with Ana Helena Chacón, Vice President of Costa Rica, on the landmark Advisory Opinion 24 issued last January by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding same-sex marriage and transgender rights. The Court resolved that same-sex couples should be recognized and guaranteed “all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex” and that governments must guarantee access “to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination.” The Opinion sets precedent for 19 other Latin American and Caribbean countries that have agreed to abide by the Court’s decisions.
In addition to being the Vice President of Costa Rica, Madame Chacón acted as the Representative of Costa Rica in the case before the Inter-American Court and is globally recognized as a vocal champion for LGBT rights.
This event is being co-sponsored by La Alianza and the Harvard Women’s Law Association.
April 4, 2018
April 5, 2018
The World’s Oldest Form of Existing Discrimination
12 -1 pm
Hauser 102 – Malkins Classroom
Please join the South Asian Law Students Association, the International Human Rights Clinic, and HLS Advocates for Human Rights for “The World’s Oldest Form of Existing Discrimination,” a talk with Dr. Suraj Yengde, a Human Rights lawyer and Non-Resident Fellow at the W.E.B Du Bois Institute at the Hutchins Center at Harvard University. Dr. Yengde will discuss the ongoing ramifications of the caste system in contemporary India, with specific attention paid to the failure of international institutions and the international community to effectively condemn caste. Dr. Yengde’s talk will additionally touch on the role of colonialism in perpetuating anti-Dalit oppression in India, as well as the ways in which law students and lawyers can effectively combat caste-based discrimination.
April 3, 2018
In Clinic Case, Jury Finds Former Bolivian President Responsible for Extrajudicial Killings of Indigenous People; Awards $10 Million in Damages
In a landmark decision today, a federal jury found the former president of Bolivia and his minister of defense responsible for extrajudicial killings carried out by the Bolivian military in September and October 2003. The decision comes after a ten-year legal battle spearheaded by family members of eight people killed in what is known in Bolivia as the “Gas War.” It marked the first time in U.S. history a former head of state has sat before his accusers in a U.S. human rights trial. The jury awarded a total of $10 million in compensatory damages to the plaintiffs.
Both the former Bolivian president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, and his former defense minister, José Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, have lived in the United States since they fled Bolivia following the massacre known as “Black October.” During that period, more than 50 people were killed and hundreds were injured. In Bolivia, in 2011, former military commanders and government officials who acted under Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín’s authority were convicted for their roles in the killings. Both Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín were indicted in the same case, but could not be tried in abstentia under Bolivian law.
The lawsuit originated from a collaborative effort between the International Human Rights Clinic and Bolivian lawyers, advocates, and community members seeking justice for the 2003 violence. Dozens of students have worked on the case since 2006.
“After many years of fighting for justice for our family members and the people of Bolivia, we celebrate this historic victory,” said Teófilo Baltazar Cerro, a plaintiff and member of the indigenous Aymara community of Bolivia, who were victims of the defendants’ decision to use massive military force against the population. “Fifteen years after they fled justice, we have finally held Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín to account for the massacre they unleashed against our people.”
In Mamani v. Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín, the families of eight Bolivians who were killed filed suit against Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín in 2007. Today’s verdict affirms the plaintiffs’ claims that the two defendants were legally responsible for the extrajudicial killings and made decisions to deploy military forces in civilian communities in order to violently quash opposition to their policies.
“To me, it was the biggest honor of my life to work with the plaintiffs and learn from them in their struggle for justice,” said Thomas Becker ’08, who brought the idea for the lawsuit to IHRC after spending time in Bolivia and learning about the massacre there. “It’s an extraordinary privilege to witness this and be a small part of this.”
The three-week trial included the testimony of 29 witnesses from across Bolivia who recounted their experiences of the 2003 killings. Twenty-three appeared in person. Eight plaintiffs testified about the deaths of their family members, including: Etelvina Ramos Mamani and Eloy Rojas Mamani, whose eight-year-old daughter Marlene was killed in front of her mother when a single shot was fired through the window; Teófilo Baltazar Cerro, whose pregnant wife Teodosia was killed after a bullet was fired through the wall of a house; Felicidad Rosa Huanca Quispe, whose 69-year-old father Raul was shot and killed along a roadside; and Gonzalo Mamani Aguilar, whose father Arturo was shot and killed while tending his crops.
One witness, a former soldier in the Bolivian military, testified about being ordered to shoot at “anything that moves” in a civilian community, while another recounted witnessing a military officer kill a soldier for refusing to follow orders to shoot at unarmed civilians. Witnesses recounted how tanks rolled through in the streets and soldiers shot for hours on end. Others testified about how the president and minister of defense committed to a military option instead of pursuing dialogue with community leaders to reach a peaceful resolution.
In 2016, a U.S. appeals court held that the plaintiffs could proceed with their claims under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which authorizes suits for monetary damages in U.S. federal court for extrajudicial killings. Sánchez de Lozada and Sánchez Berzaín then sought and were denied a review by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, and the case moved forward in U.S. District Court. After a review of the evidence gathered by both sides, District Court Judge James I. Cohn ruled on February 14 that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.
“There are just no words for what the plaintiffs have done over the past ten years to seek justice for their lost loved ones as well as many others who were killed in Bolivia,” said Tyler Giannini, Co-Director of Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic. “Today the jury gave the plaintiffs a huge victory, and showed that the former president and his defense minister are not above the law.”
“When I heard the verdict, I almost couldn’t believe it,” added Susan Farbstein, Co-Director of Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic. “The only thing I could think of was: We didn’t let down the plaintiffs, we didn’t disappoint them, we did our jobs.”
As co-counsel, the International Human Rights Clinic has been involved in all phases of the litigation from the outset, including researching and drafting for the complaint and various motions and briefs, assisting with oral arguments, and undertaking more than a dozen investigative missions to Bolivia since 2007. Over the past year, during the discovery phase, students traveled to Bolivia numerous times, and assisted with document review, interrogatories, and the depositions of plaintiffs, witnesses and experts; more than a half dozen students worked on every facet of the case during the three weeks of trial.
“It was fascinating to work under the legal team and have complete faith in their talent and ability to manage such a complex case,” said Amy Volz ’18, who traveled to Bolivia on four fact-finding trips. “It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”
After the jury announced its verdict, the defendants made a motion asking the judge to overturn the jury’s finding of liability against both defendants. Both parties will submit briefing on this issue in the coming weeks.
“We’re not one to leave halfway through the fight,” said Baltazar Cerro. “We will struggle until the last moment.”
In addition to the Clinic, a team of lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the law firms of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman, LLP, and Akerman LLP are representing the family members. Lawyers from the Center for Law, Justice and Society (Dejusticia) are cooperating attorneys.
- Page 1 of 2