Close

Contact Us

loading

Human Rights @ Harvard Law

Blog

Blog

February 05, 2016

In Thanks and Tribute to Mindy Jane Roseman

Posted by Gerald Neuman

The Human Rights Program expresses its gratitude and appreciation to our departing Academic Director, Mindy Jane Roseman, as she takes up new responsibilities at Yale Law School.  In her decade at HRP, she has contributed in innumerable, crucial ways to the intellectual, institutional, and communal life of HRP.  We thank her for all her achievements here, and warmly wish her great success in her new role.

IMG_1175

 

January 26, 2016

Moving on from the Human Rights Program (a note from Mindy Jane Roseman)

Posted by Mindy Roseman

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

After ten years as Academic Director at the Human Rights Program, and many years before that as a collaborator at the Harvard School of Public Health, I write to let you know that I am leaving HRP, effective February 5, 2016.  I will be joining Yale Law School as Director of both its International Programs and its Gruber Program on Global Justice and Women’s Rights. This was not an easy decision, especially since it means I will be warming the bench from the other side of the basketball court.

There are many communities at Harvard Law School that are dear to me, but I cherish HRP – its work, staff, faculty, students, alumni – perhaps above all. I’ll still be on campus this semester (teaching a seminar), and my email will be active through June.

I hope to stay in touch and wish you all the best of luck.

Fondly,

Mindy

January 24, 2016

Friday, January 29: Post Graduate Fellowship Information Session

Aminta Ossom, JD ’09, spent her year as a Satter Fellow working for Amnesty International, building the evidence base and capacity for crimes against humanity and war crimes in West Africa.

Post Graduate Fellowship Information Session

12:00 – 1:00 p.m.

WCC 4059

Please join us for pizza and an informational session about the post-graduate fellowships offered through the Human Rights Program.

We’ll fill you in on the Henigson and Satter fellowships, both of which have deadlines in March.

January 07, 2016

“Fighting for Disarmament”: Bonnie Docherty’s work featured in Harvard Gazette

This Q & A by reporter Liz Mineo ran in the Harvard Gazette on January 3, 2015

After researching the devastating humanitarian effects of the deadly cluster munitions used in Afghanistan in 2002, Bonnie Docherty joined a worldwide campaign to eliminate them.

Six years after she started her probe, cluster bombs were banned. Her investigation on the use of cluster munitions in Afghanistan, and later in Iraq and Lebanon, was highly influential in a 2008 treaty, joined by 118 countries, that bans these weapons.

121115_Docherty_605

Bonnie showing examples of inert cluster munitions. Credit: Jon Chase, Harvard staff photographer

For Docherty, a lecturer on law and a senior instructor at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, the battle to protect civilians from unnecessary harm continues.

Last month, Docherty traveled to Geneva to advocate for stronger regulations on incendiary devices, which she calls “exceptionally cruel weapons” that have been used in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine.

Docherty, who is also a senior researcher in the arms division at Human Rights Watch, recently sat down for an interview to talk about these weapons, killer robots, and her guiding principle: to protect civilians from suffering caused by armed conflicts.

GAZETTE: Before you became a disarmament advocate, you were a reporter for a local newspaper. Can you tell us about this part of your life?

DOCHERTY: After college, I was a reporter for The Middlesex News, now the MetroWest Daily News, outside of Boston, for three years. I covered mostly local news, government meetings, environmental issues, but I had the opportunity to go to Bosnia and embed with the peacekeepers for about 10 days in 1998. There was an Army lab in my town, that’s how I got the invitation to go to Bosnia. I had been interested in armed conflicts, but that trip definitely increased my interest in that field.

GAZETTE: How did you make the jump from suburban journalism to human rights and disarmament issues?

DOCHERTY: After I left the newsroom, I went to Harvard Law School. Right after graduation, I went to Human Rights Watch, which was a perfect mix of journalism and law because you go out in the field and you apply the law to what you find. My start date was Sept. 12, 2001, by happenstance, so whatever was planned was changed. Six months later, I was in Afghanistan researching the use of cluster munitions, which was my first exposure to disarmament issues.

GAZETTE: What are cluster munitions, and why are they so dangerous?

DOCHERTY: Cluster munitions are large weapons, such as bombs or rockets that contain dozens or hundreds of small munitions called submunitions. They’re problematic because they have a broad area effect — they spread over the size of a football field — and because many of them don’t explode on impact and lie around like landmines and explode in years or decades to come.

GAZETTE: How did your involvement with cluster munitions begin?

121115_Docherty_570

Bonnie holds an inert submunition fragment from a cluster munition. Credit: Jon Chase, Harvard staff photographer

DOCHERTY: I went to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and later Georgia to document the use of these weapons. I’ve spoken with dozens of victims of cluster munitions, but the story I remember the most is when I was in Lebanon with two students from Harvard Law’s International Human Rights Clinic in 2006. We were there doing field research after Israel used cluster munitions in Lebanon. We were at a restaurant, and someone asked us to go to the town of Halta immediately. When we arrived, we found out that two hours earlier a 12-year-old boy had been killed by a cluster submunition. He had been playing with his brother, who had been throwing pinecones at him. The boy picked up something to throw back at his brother. It turned out to be a submunition. His friend said, “Oh, no. That’s dangerous, drop it,” and when he went to throw it away, it exploded next to his head. When we were there, they were still cleaning up the pool of blood from his body. The Lebanese army found 10, 12 submunitions lying around right next to a village, waiting to kill or injure civilians, farmers, children.

GAZETTE: Your research on cluster munitions led you to become one of the world’s most widely known advocates against these weapons. How did this happen?

Read More

December 18, 2015

Commentary: The Horror of Incendiary Weapons and the Need for Stronger Law

Posted by Bonnie Docherty

This post, “Unrivaled Cruelty: The Horror of Incendiary Weapons and the Need for Stronger Law,” was originally published in Jurist

Incendiary weapons inflict almost unrivaled cruelty on their victims. Photos taken after an incendiary weapon attack on a Syrian school show the charred bodies of children, who must have experienced unimaginable agony. The weapons cause excruciatingly painful burns, and treatment for survivors requires sloughing off dead skin, which has been likened to being flayed alive. While individuals often react to accounts of such suffering with horror, government efforts to minimize the harm from these weapons by strengthening international law have been unacceptably slow.

Many countries have expressed outrage at the use of incendiary weapons over the past five years, including at meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW), the treaty that regulates the weapons. The voices of these countries are crucial and they should continue to raise the issue. But it is time to move from condemnation to concrete action. A major disarmament conference scheduled for next year presents an excellent opportunity for progress.

Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance. They can be designed to burn people or materiel, serve as smokescreens or provide illumination. People who survive attacks with incendiary weapons not only experience physical injuries, but also frequently endure psychological trauma, permanent disfigurement and difficulties reintegrating into society.

Over the past two years Human Rights Watch has documented new use of incendiary weapons in Syria and Ukraine, and it is investigating allegations of use in Libya and Yemen in 2015. A report recently released by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic provides evidence of these attacks, along with a five-year review of developments on the issue and recommendations for next steps.

Existing international law has failed to prevent the harm caused by incendiary weapons. Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, adopted in 1980, restricts use of incendiary weapons in “concentrations of civilians.” As of December 2015, 112 countries had joined the protocol.

But two key shortcomings have limited its effectiveness. First, it defines “incendiary weapon” as being “primarily designed to set fires to objects or to cause burn injury to persons.” As a result some countries maintain that it excludes munitions with incendiary effects, such as those containing white phosphorus. Although primarily designed to function as smokescreens these weapons inflict suffering comparable to other incendiary weapons. White phosphorus burns through flesh to the bone and can reignite when bandages are removed and the substance is exposed to oxygen.

The protocol also makes an arbitrary distinction between air-dropped and ground-launched incendiary weapons, creating exceptions for certain uses of ground-launched weapons. The delivery system is irrelevant to the victims, however, and ground-launched models have become increasingly common and accessible even to non-state armed groups.

The solution to these problems is legally, if not politically, quite simple. Protocol III should be amended to define the weapons based on their effects rather than their design. And it should at a minimum prohibit the use of all incendiary weapons in concentrations of civilians, regardless of their delivery system. An absolute ban would have the greatest humanitarian benefit.

Over the past five years about three dozen countries, along with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN secretary-general and independent groups, have spoken out about this issue at meetings of the Convention on Conventional Weapons and other UN bodies, and in letters to Human Rights Watch. Most have highlighted the humanitarian impact of incendiary weapons in general or condemned recent use. Many have urged treaty members to strengthen Protocol III or said they are willing to discuss the adequacy of the protocol.

At the most recent meeting of the states parties, held at the UN in Geneva in November, momentum continued to grow. About 15 countries publicly addressed the incendiary weapons issue, more than in previous years, and others privately expressed support for reviewing Protocol III. A majority of these countries called for closing the protocol’s loopholes while others said they wanted to revisit existing rules. Six countries commented on incendiary weapons for the first time in this forum, demonstrating the increasing recognition of the problem and need to take action. The meeting’s final report included a reference to concerns about incendiary weapons for the fifth consecutive year. Such developments are encouraging.

But amending international law is a slow process and there will be hurdles to success. At the November meeting Russia said the proposal to pursue formal discussions on incendiary weapons would be “counterproductive.” Given that the treaty’s rules require decisions to be made by consensus, Russia alone could block further progress. Russia’s statement on the issue was its first in a meeting of this treaty, however, meaning that at least it takes the calls for change seriously.

The treaty’s Fifth Review Conference—a meeting held every five years—is scheduled for next December and will be an important opportunity for countries to take action. There treaty members will reflect on developments since the last review conference in 2011 and make plans for the next five years. Review conferences have historically been pivotal in the evolution of the treaty and its protocols.

In the coming months countries should ensure that incendiary weapons are placed on the agenda for the review conference. At the conference itself they should continue to express their concerns and agree to a new mandate that sets aside time to discuss the implementation and adequacy of Protocol III. The goal should be to negotiate the amendments needed to strengthen the protocol.

When Protocol III was adopted in 1980, some countries criticized its regulations of incendiary weapons as inadequate. They contended that there had been strong support for a ban but that compromise had watered down the final product. Several held out hope that the protocol’s failings would one day be addressed and recommended that the instrument be improved at a future review conference.

Thirty-five years later that has yet to happen, but it is not too late. The horrendous suffering incendiary weapons have caused civilians in recent years and the growing international opposition mean that the time has come to act. Countries should seize the opportunity presented by the 2016 review conference and take tangible steps to increase the protection of civilians from incendiary weapons.

December 09, 2015

Op-Ed: Staff Are Organizing To Fight Racism at Harvard Law School

Posted by Gabriela Gonzalez Follett

This Op-Ed was originally posted in the Harvard Law School Record, as part of #HLSUntaped, an open discussion on race at the law school. 

When I first started working at Harvard Law School, I had 13 stops. That’s how long it took to get from Ashmont Station, near my childhood home in Dorchester, to Harvard Square, where I had just accepted a job as a program assistant. Thirteen stops I had to convince myself that I belonged at the law school and that I had a place among the elite. Even today, a year later, I stop outside Wasserstein every morning, take a couple of deep breaths, and prepare to leave a part of myself on Massachusetts Avenue.

It’s my job as a staff member to serve the HLS community. I serve students their food, I process affidavit letters for alums, and I book professors’ rooms for meetings. But just because I serve  does not make me a servant. Many people at HLS understand this. But in an institution that has a strong caste system, with very few people of color at the top, it is inevitable that some individuals treat staff as the “other.”

I’ve been described as an affirmative action hire before—that comes with the territory of being Latina in America. But I never thought I’d hear this comment at an elite institution like Harvard Law School, let alone on my second week of work. I never thought I’d hear a student tell  me  I speak well, coming from Dorchester with a Latina background. This rhetoric of racism  is not unique. The narratives I hear from staff of color at the law school about these kinds of micro aggressions are paralyzing, and need to be addressed.

As little support as the students of color get at this school, staff of color get even less. The law school has an opportunity to embrace the movement and empower its community. Establish an office of diversity and inclusion, as well as other institutional changes aimed at curtailing organizational hierarchy and injustice against students, staff and faculty. Make a sustained commitment to the recruitment, retention, promotion, and professional development of staff of color at all levels, particularly in senior management. Implement measures to ensure staff of color are respected and supported in their work, including required cultural competency training for all.

The privilege I have as an administrator in the Human Rights Program allows me to speak out and not fear reprisal. I can organize and attend meetings because my community not only supports and encourages this work, but trusts that I will get my work done. Other staff do not have that kind of freedom.

It has been an honor to take a place in this growing movement at HLS. Relationships are building in all corners of the school. Staff of color are meeting for “family dinner,” a place to find fellowship and work towards empowering each other.  Staff and students are coming together, energized, collaborative, and committed to creating a better climate. Allies across the law school offer support and valuable skills in times where it can feel overwhelming for people of color.

I invite you—staff, students, administrators, senior management, Dean Minow–to join us.

To follow the movement, check out #ReclaimHarvardLaw and #RoyallMust Fall, a campaign specifically targeted at getting the law school’s crest removed. The crest is taken from the seal of the Royall family, known as particularly brutal slavers.

Below, images from an effort led by Gabriela, Anna Crowe and Katherine Talbot  to show staff solidarity with people of color at the law school.

November 20, 2015

In Response to Hate

Posted by Staff and Faculty of the Human Rights Program

Last night, the Harvard University community came together in solidarity for the national ‪#‎studentblackout‬ demonstration. This morning, we woke up to find black tape slashed across the portraits of black professors. We are devastated- for our colleagues, for our students, for our community, and for a world that in so many ways does not acknowledge that ‪#‎blacklivesmatter‬.

Our doors are open for anyone in our community who wants to talk about this, and about how we can partner together for change- today and every day.

Below, a portrait of Prof. Randall Kennedy surrounded by notes of love and support from the HLS community. As Harvard police began its investigation into the vandalism this morning as a hate crime, these notes appeared around the portraits of every black professor at HLS.

Randall

 

 

Below, images from the student protest the night before (taken by Gabbie Follett, HRP program assistant).

November 19, 2015

Joint Clinic Report: Company’s Remedies for Rape in Papua New Guinea Deeply Flawed

PRESS RELEASE


Company’s Remedies for Rape in Papua New Guinea Deeply Flawed

Legal experts at Columbia and Harvard law schools find major deficiencies with remedies given by multinational company to women raped by its security guards


Geneva & New York, November 19, 2015—A controversial process created by one of the world’s largest gold mining companies to compensate women for rapes and gang rapes in Papua New Guinea was deeply flawed, said human rights investigators and legal experts at Columbia and Harvard Law Schools in a study released today.

The three-year study of Barrick Gold’s remedy mechanism at its Porgera gold mine found that the effort to provide packages to 120 rape survivors was flawed from the start and fell far short of international standards.

“These are some of the most vicious assaults I have ever investigated,” said Professor Sarah Knuckey, one of the lead authors of the report, and the Director of the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Institute. “The women and local communities had to struggle for years just to get the company to admit what happened.”

Most women were offered less than $6,000 USD each in compensation, and were also given some counseling and healthcare. Knuckey continued, “They had been suffering for far too long, and deserved much more.”

For several years, security guards at the Porgera mine physically assaulted and sexually abused members of the community. It was only after repeated pressure by local and international groups that the Canadian mining company finally acknowledged the sexual violence and launched an internal investigation in 2010. The company created a remedy mechanism to handle claims by survivors two years later.

The legal investigators interviewed dozens of survivors for the 129-page report, Righting Wrongs?, which found that, in this situation, the women should not have had to sign away their legal rights to sue in order to receive remedies. In addition, the process excluded survivors of many other, non-sexual assaults by company guards, and had insufficient outreach, so some survivors did not know about the mechanism in time to bring their cases. The report also says that inadequate security measures were put in place for survivors, and that some women have reported being threatened and beaten up by family members when their rapes were discovered.

“If remedy mechanisms are to have any chance of addressing egregious violations, they must take on the gross power imbalance between a company and survivors,” said Clinical Professor Tyler Giannini, one of the lead authors and Clinical Director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School. “Many of the women signed the company’s agreements because they felt that they simply had no other choice.”

The importance of power was highlighted again this year, when eleven women who obtained U.S.-based lawyers refused to accept the company’s packages, and were given confidential settlement packages believed to be about ten times greater than the amount given to the roughly 120 women who used Barrick’s process. Upon learning this, the lesser-compensated survivors came together to demand more. The company quickly more than doubled their packages, which are still far less than what those who had U.S. lawyers received, and women in Porgera continue to demand that they should receive equitable packages.

The report found that there were some positive features of the mechanism, but that necessary safeguards such as consultation and prior engagement with the survivors and robust legal counsel for the women were either unimplemented or poorly implemented.

“When a company creates and controls the process on its own, there’s an inherent conflict of interest,” said Giannini. “Survivors should be involved early in the process, and on equal footing throughout, so that they do not feel forced into compensation packages that fall seriously short.”

Rather than company-created models, the report suggests an approach that brings companies, survivors, and communities into the joint design of the remedy process. This approach centers the survivors in the process from the outset, and can help address power differentials. The report also calls on the company to provide additional remedies to the 120 women so that their agreements are in line with the amounts received by the eleven women represented by U.S. attorneys; void all legal waivers signed by women; provide remedy to individuals who faced other security guard abuses, including physical assaults; and to provide urgent security protection to women who are currently at risk.

The remedy mechanism is one of the first to be created after the release of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011, which set out the responsibilities of companies for human rights. The Porgera mine has been open since 1989. Barrick Gold became majority-owner and operator of the mine in 2006. Since then, the clinics have actively investigated the situation at the mine. The Columbia and Harvard human rights clinics presented the report this week in Geneva at the 4th Annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights.

*****

Media contacts:

Sarah Knuckey, Director, Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic: + 1 (917) 685 9098 | sarah.knuckey@law.columbia.edu (Geneva/NYC)

Tyler Giannini, Director, International Human Rights Clinic, Harvard Law School: + 1 (617) 669 2340 | giannini@law.harvard.edu (Boston)

Clinical Advocacy Fellow, Amelia Evans, LLM ’11, supervised a research trip that contributed to this report. In addition, numerous students, including Flora Amwayi, JD ’13; Skawenniio Barnes, JD ’14; Marie Cita, JD ’14; Krizna Gomez, LLM ’13; Reeba Muthalaly, LLM ’14; Tamaryn Nelson, MPA ’14; Kiri Toki, LLM ’16; and Helen Zhang, JD ’16, contributed to the report.

The report is available at: www.rightingwrongsporgera.com

 

November 13, 2015

Threat of Extrajudicial Executions Looms in Bangladesh

Posted by Susan Farbstein

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, faces the imminent threat of execution next week despite being convicted and sentenced through a deeply flawed process.  Our partners at Akin Gump are working with Chowdhury’s family to call attention to his case, in the hopes that increased international scrutiny might lead to a different outcome.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, faces the imminent threat of execution next week.

Salauddin Quader Chowdhury, a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, faces the imminent threat of execution next week.

Chowdhury was tried and convicted by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) of Bangladesh, a body established by the ruling Awami League to prosecute those accused of committing international crimes during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan in 1971.  A variety of international human rights organizations and experts have roundly criticized the ICT, which began operating in 2010, for failing to uphold basic fair trial and due process standards.

For example, Human Rights Watch has characterized the trials as “deeply problematic, riddled with questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges and fairness of the process.”  The International Commission of Jurists has identified “serious procedure flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.”  In an exhaustive study commissioned by the International Forum for Democracy and Human Rights, Geoffrey Robinson also documented a range of procedural concerns related to treatment of alibi evidence, burden of proof, use of judicial notice, time and facilities to prepare the defense, hearsay evidence, and capacity of the judges.  And the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions and on the independence of judges and lawyers have spoken out against multiple irregularities, including complaints from defense witness and lawyers about “an atmosphere of hostility, intimidation and harassment.”

Chowdhury’s case brings these general concerns into stark focus, as his trial suffered from numerous flaws that violated fundamental due process standards.  For example, the tribunal denied Chowdhury’s defense team the opportunity to submit exonerating evidence to show that he was not present in Bangladesh at the time of his alleged crimes.  The ICT did not allow multiple defense eyewitnesses to testify and failed to consider affidavits from other key witnesses, including a former U.S. Ambassador and a former Pakistani Prime Minister.  The Bangladesh Supreme Court recently rendered a decision refusing to admit this substantial evidence; Chowdhury’s final review hearing is scheduled for November 17th.

Both Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have rightly warned that, “given serious concerns about the fairness of trials conducted before the Tribunal, the Government of Bangladesh should not implement death penalty sentences.”  Perpetrators of international crimes should be held accountable for their heinous acts.  But prosecutions—like Chowdhury’s—that fail to meet international fair trial standards cannot deliver the justice that survivors and victims deserve, and only serve to undermine the rule of law.

For more information, please click here.

November 10, 2015

Remembering Ken Saro-Wiwa: The Struggle Continues in the Niger Delta

Posted by Susan Farbstein

Ken2

Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of nine environmental activists from Ogoniland in the Niger Delta who were executed after a grossly unfair trial on 10 November 1995. © Amnesty International/Karen de Groot

Twenty years ago today, Ken Saro-Wiwa and the other members of the Ogoni Nine were hanged in Port Haurcourt, Nigeria. Saro-Wiwa was a writer, environmental activist, and outspoken critic of Shell’s destruction of Ogoniland. He accused Shell of waging an ecological war against the Ogoni, co-founding the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) to protect their rights and protest the devastating effects of Shell’s oil exploitation on their land.

In response, Nigeria’s military junta falsely accused him of murder and then created a special tribunal — which violated international due process standards — to prosecute and sentence him to death. In 2009, Shell agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle a case in which it was accused of ­collaborating with the Nigerian government in Saro-Wiwa’s execution.

On this anniversary, it would be nice to document how much has changed in the Niger Delta over the last two decades — how pollution from oil extraction has been reduced, how Shell has cleaned up past spills, how the Ogoni no longer suffer from poisoned waterways, fishing areas, and surface soil. Unfortunately that article can’t be written, because the devastation continues.

Although Shell was forced out of Ogoniland in 1993, it remains responsible for leakages, gas flaring, and oil blow-outs from approximately 5,000 kilometers of its pipelines that still run through the area. Hundreds of spills occur annually across this old and poorly maintained pipeline network, ruining drinking wells, agricultural fields, forests, and fisheries that the Ogoni depend on for their food and their livelihood. Shell acknowledges spills leading to more than 55 million liters of oil leaked in the Delta in recent years — and these numbers likely understate the true scale of the damage. (By comparison, on average there were 10 spills annually across the whole of Europe from 1971 to 2011; the infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska accounted for approximately 41 million liters lost.)

Land contaminated with oil around Shell’s Bomu Manifold site, near K. Dere village in the Niger Delta. © Amnesty International

Land contaminated with oil around Shell’s Bomu Manifold site, near K. Dere village in the Niger Delta. © Amnesty International

The most comprehensive study on the impact of oil pollution in Niger Delta, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2011, documented appalling levels of ongoing contamination. The UNEP also found that Shell had failed to properly clean up spills at more than 60 locations across Ogoniland. In response, Shell assured its critics that, since 2011, it has addressed the pollution identified in the UNEP report.

But a recent study by Amnesty International (AI) and the Centre for the Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD) flatly contradicts Shell’s claims. In locations where Shell asserts it has cleaned up and remediated past spills — and where Nigerian government regulators have certified sites as clean — AI and CEHRD found water-logged areas with an oily sheen, land that was black and oil-encrusted, and soil that was soaked and visibly contaminated with crude. They conclude that Shell has not improved its methodology for addressing oil spills and still fails to adequately clean up its pollution.

To truly commemorate Saro-Wiwa, the struggle for social and environmental justice and a clean Niger Delta must continue. Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s recent pledge to fast-track implementation of the UNEP’s recommendations is commendable but insufficient. Shell must improve its approach to oil spill remediation, properly clean up the Delta, and compensate communities for past harms. And the Nigerian government must create an effective oversight, regulation, and accountability process for the oil industry, one that addresses the underlying causes of pollution in the Delta, including the maintenance of oil infrastructure and a re-examination of the spill investigation process.

Shell’s unapologetic attitude and unchanged behavior are an insult to human rights and all that Ken Saro-Wiwa represents. The Nigerian state and Shell might have hoped that killing Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues would end the struggle. We owe it to him to prove them wrong.

Susan and a team of clinical students participated in litigating Wiwa v. Shell, which charged Shell with complicity in the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other non-violent Nigerian activists, and successfully settled in 2009.