Iraqi Civilians and U.S. Veterans Come Together to Demand the Right to Heal

Posted by Cara Solomon, Deborah Popowski and Stella Kim, JD ’13

Yesterday, on the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, we joined our coalition partners in the launch of the Right to Heal initiative, a collaboration between Iraq Veterans Against the War  (IVAW), the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), and the Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI), as well as other supporting organizations. One by one, standing in front of the White House, members of IVAW and OWFI delivered the message that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not over for them.

On the 10th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Joyce Wagner, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, gives testimony about the oppression of women on both sides of the conflict. Drake Logan, a member of the Civilian-Soldier Alliance, stands beside her.

The organizations, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, announced that they would file a petition for a thematic hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, calling for U.S. accountability for the human cost of these wars. In testimonies that were both moving and motivating, speakers on both sides of the U.S.-led conflict in Iraq described the toll that a decade of war had taken on their communities, including the loss of thousands of lives; devastating trauma and injury with shamefully inadequate or non-existent medical care; a legacy of health and environmental poisoning due to toxic munitions and burn pits; gender-based violence as a weapon and byproduct of war; and a generation of orphans and displaced people.

Joyce Wagner, a longtime member of IVAW, spoke about the violence the war had unleashed on women, and specifically, about her experience with Military Sexual Trauma. We thank her for allowing us to reprint her comments below:

In recent years, the United Nations has taken a strong stance against gender-based violence, calling it a “pandemic” that concerns not only women, but every single person on the planet.

Worldwide, it is estimated that one in five women will be raped in her lifetime. In the US military, it is estimated that one in three women will be raped during her time in service. I am the one in three.

Many servicewomen who report rape to their commands face disbelief, retaliation, and various forms of humiliation that some have described as being as bad, if not worse, than the initial assault.  It should come as no surprise then that a large number of rapes and sexual assaults go unreported.  Male rape victims are even less likely to report their assault due to stigmas associated masculinity.

This pattern of retaliation and dismissal creates an environment in which sexual harassment and sexual assault are accepted as incidental to military service.  Reporting the crime of rape in the military often results in the victim being treated like a criminal.  Servicewomen are asked what they were wearing or doing to have caused the incident and perpetrators are rarely held accountable.

Those seeking compensation from the VA for Military Sexual Trauma face similar treatment and little hope of closure.  In 2010, after being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma, I filed a disability claim with the Department of Veteran Affairs.  After sharing the most personal and painful details of my life, I heard nothing from the VA for over a year. It took over two years before I received a letter stating that my claim was denied because, amongst other things, I had invited my rapist into my tent.  Unfortunately, my case is not uncommon.

The Service Women’s Action Network, along with the ACLU, filed a freedom of information act request for information from the VA concerning gender differences in compensation awarded for PTSD claims related to Military Sexual Trauma.  Their findings indicated that in the fiscal year 2008-2010, the VA denied 2 out of 3 of these claims.  Of the men and women who are compensated for Military Sexual Trauma, men were more likely than women to receive a 70% – 100% disability rating while women were more likely than men to receive a 10% – 30% disability rating.  This means that these women are likely to receive less financial compensation and are entitled to fewer medical benefits from the VA.

A 2008 United Nations document concerning Sexual Violence Against Women and Children in Armed Conflict states:

War-time sexual violence has been one of history’s greatest silences. Long dismissed as the random acts of renegade soldiers, rape has been steeped in a self-serving myth of inevitability.  Indeed, conflict creates a climate for rampant sexual abuse.

In Iraq, this sexual violence has been perpetrated directly by members of the US armed forces and has also occurred incidentally as a result of the occupation.  Rape, among other disturbing forms of torture were exposed at Abu Ghraib prison and subsequently disappeared from American discourse, dismissed as an isolated incident.  What people may not know or may not remember is that the horrific events at Abu Ghraib were first exposed in a letter written by a woman being held in the prison.

The letter explained that the women in the prison were being raped and some were now pregnant.  The lawyers representing these detainees soon discovered that this was a pattern in prisons across Iraq where women were being held without charge.  And the rape of Iraqis has not been limited to prisons, nor has it been limited to adults.  In 2006, a soldier from the 101^st Airborne division,  along with three other soldiers, raped a 14-year-old girl and killed her and her parents.  He claimed that he no longer saw Iraqis as human, and that he had been influenced by his peers, his training, and extreme warzone violence combined with lack of oversight and leadership.

Although most occupying troops have exited Iraq, the occupation has resulted in lasting struggles for Iraqi women.  While I am unable to escape my nightmares, I am able to live in relative physical comfort, unlikely to experience many of the things that are inescapable to those still living in Iraq.  And while the Department of Defense and the VA have done an insufficient job at compensating and caring for US servicemembers victimized by their fellow servicemembers in acts of sexual violence, they have done absolutely nothing to make reparation to victims of sexual violence in Iraq.  How can I ask for justice for myself without first demanding justice for the many women in Iraq who were raped and otherwise abused in an occupation in which I participated?

Today, as part of the Right to Heal initiative, we demand acknowledgement, accountability and reparation.  And we will keep demanding these things, until women on all sides of this conflict have their justice, and the world at large understands:  Sexual violence in the military, and by the military, is not an occupational hazard; it’s a violation of human rights.

SAVE THE DATE: Special Event to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Event Notice

March 26, 2013

“For Us, The Wars Aren’t Over: The Right to Heal Initiative”

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Wasserstein 2012

Food will be served

Ten years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Human Rights Program and organizations from across the Harvard and Boston communities mark the anniversary with speakers from two groups still living with the consequences of the last decade of U.S.-led wars: Iraqis and U.S. veterans and service members.  Members of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq and Iraq Veterans Against the War will speak about the costs of war they share.  Together with attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights and Harvard Law School, they will discuss the Right to Heal Initiative, the partnership they have formed to fight for redress.

Speakers:

Yanar Mohammed, President, Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Ms. Mohammed is the founder of OWFI, a nongovernmental organization that promotes women’s rights and interests in Iraq.  She will speak about OWFI’s work in an Iraqi town near a U.S. military base that has seen dramatic increases in the incidence of birth defects, cancers, and other severe health ailments.

Matt Howard, Member, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Mr. Howard served two tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps.  He will discuss the costs of war for U.S. service members and veterans, particularly the obstacles that prevent too many from receiving proper medical and mental health care.  IVAW and its subcommittee, Afghan Veterans Against the War, have advocated for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and for reparations to Iraqis for the costs of war.

Pamela Spees, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights

Ms. Spees will discuss CCR’s role as a support player in the Right to Heal’s collaborative project to ensure the U.S. takes concrete steps for health care, accountability, and reparations.

Moderator: Deborah Alejandra Popowski, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School

This event is being co-sponsored by: HLS Advocates for Human Rights, Harvard National Security and Law Association, Islamic Society of Boston, National Lawyers Guild (Mass. Chapter), Veterans for Peace (Ch. 9, Smedley D. Butler Brigade), BC Law Holocaust/Human Rights Project, HKS Human Rights Professional Interest Council, HLS American Constitution Society, HLS Democrats, HLS Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, HLS Muslim Law Students Association, Harvard Women’s Law Association, HSPH Muslim Student Group, MIT Amnesty International, MIT Center for International Studies, MIT Muslim Student Association, Northeastern Univ. Arab Student Association, Human Rights Caucus at Northeastern Univ. School of Law, Tufts Univ. New Initiative for Middle East Peace, Tufts Univ. Fletcher School Human Rights Project

Tonight: “Women, War and Survival”

Event Notice

March 11, 2013

“Women, War, and Survival: Rethinking Legal Understandings of Historical Trauma”

A Preview Screening of the Documentary Film “Imagine a War”

Followed by a Panel Discussion

6- 8:30 pm

Wasserstein 2004

Please join us for a provocative new documentary featuring one woman’s troubling account of surviving WWII as a German in Berlin. The director of the film, Malcom Rogge, LL.M candidate, will be present.

In addition to Rogge, other panelists include: Luise Druke, Fellow, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative; Heidi Matthews, S.J.D. candidate; and Alan Stone, Touroff-Glueck Professor of Law and Psychiatry. The discussion will be moderated by Janet Halley, Royall Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.

This event is being co-sponsored by the HLS SJD Association and Harvard Women’s Law Association.

Event Today: Migration and Human Rights in the Americas

Event Notice

March 7, 2013

Migration and Human Rights in the Americas:

A Discussion of the Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic Case

12- 1 pm

Hauser 105

Last October, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights adopted a standard- setting decision in the Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic case, when it condemned the Dominican State for the killing and collective expulsion of Haitian migrants by the armed forces. Please join us for a discussion with the lead attorney on the case, Professor Bernard Duhaime, of the University of Quebec in Montreal, and Professor Susan Akram, of Boston University School of Law, who participated in the case as Amicus Curiae.

Prof. Duhaime will present the decision in its context and talk about its importance for the development of human rights law. He will also address how the case was litigated and talk about the challenges to come in the implementation phase. Prof. Akram will discuss how longstanding issues that the Court and Commission have addressed as discrimination against migrants shaped the Court’s decision in the Dorzema case.

Event Today: Transitional Justice and the Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Event Notice

February 26, 2013

Khmer Rouge Tribunal and its Contribution to Transitional Justice

A Discussion with Andrew Cayley

UN Chief International Co-Prosecutor of the ECCC

4-6 pm

Hauser 102

Please join the Human Rights Program and the Humanitarian Academy at Harvard for a lecture and roundtable discussion with Andrew Cayley, the United Nations Chief  International Co-Prosecutor of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.  Cayley is a Queen’s Counsel and leading international criminal lawyer, who has prosecuted and defended at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Court, Special Court for Sierra Leone and the ECCC.

View from the Inside: Solitary Confinement as a Human Rights Issue

Posted by Katie McCarthy, JD ’15

The dramatic expansion of solitary confinement over the past two decades is a human rights issue we can no longer afford to ignore; the United States now holds more prisoners in solitary confinement than any other democratic nation in the world. Often used as a punishment for minor, nonviolent offenses or as a solution to overcrowding, solitary confinement is a draconian, expensive, and inhumane practice that too often goes unmonitored and unopposed.

For this reason, the Prison Legal Assistance Project has organized a panel discussion tonight between experts and activists who have experienced solitary confinement and can speak personally about its effects. The event runs from 5-7 p.m. in Austin West and includes dinner.

Panelists include: Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist who has extensively researched the psychological impact of solitary confinement; Bobby Dellelo, an activist who has experienced the effects of solitary confinement; Professor Jules Lobel, the President of the Center for Constitutional Rights; and Mika’il DeVeaux, Executive Director of Citizens Against Recidivism. The event will be moderated by Matthew Segal, Legal Director of the ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts.

Two of the panelists will discuss their own experiences in solitary, highlighting the inhumanity of this practice and the coping mechanisms they’ve developed, as well as the activism they are currently involved with. Dr. Grassian will speak to the long-term psychological effects of solitary and how it can heighten anti-social behaviors.  The panel will also discuss the role of impact litigation in challenging solitary confinement as a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and as cruel and unusual punishment.

In addition to your questions, we will have questions from prisoners, thanks to Between the Bars, an MIT organization that runs online blogs for prisoners. We put out a call for those who had experienced solitary to come up with questions for the panelists or just to write about their own experiences, which you can read about through their various blogs. Outside the panel, photographs from Richard Ross’s “Juvenile In-Justice” collection will be displayed.

We hope to see you tomorrow at this important event.

Tomorrow, Thursday, Nov. 15: The Rule of Law at Home and Abroad

Event Notice

November 15, 2012

“Rule of Law at Home and Abroad – A Critical Perspective”

A Panel Discussion

12 – 2 pm

Wasserstein 3019

Promoting the rule of law at the national and international levels is at the heart of the United Nations’ mission. It is also a principle that is embedded throughout the Charter of the United Nations and most constitutions of national states. But there is much friction among Member States as to the definition of the rule of law, with assertions of hidden agendas.  In addition, there is mounting skepticism among donors and international organizations regarding rule of law promotion.

Please join us for an inter-active discussion on these issues with panelists: Gerald L. Neuman, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard; Ivan Šimonović, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights; and Robert O. Varenik, Director of Programs, Open Society Justice Initiative.

The moderator will be David Marshall, LL.M ‘02, Visiting Fellow, Harvard Human Rights Program, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Today: The Guatemala STD Inoculation Studies; Human Rights and the Supreme Court of India

Event Notice

November 13, 2012

“The Guatemala STD Inoculation Studies: What Should We Do Now?”

12:30-2 pm

Wasserstein 3019

Lunch will be served

In the late 1940s, US and Guatemalan researchers conducted a host of experiments on vulnerable Guatemalan subjects, purposefully exposing them to and infecting them with a number of STDs without their consent.  The experiments were kept hidden for more than half a century, until they were discovered and exposed only recently by historian Susan Reverby.  The US government has since apologized for what happened, but a class action suit brought on behalf of the Guatemalan subjects was dismissed in June and efforts to directly compensate the victims have not been forthcoming.   Please join Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center and Human Rights Program for a panel discussion of the study and possible legal and political responses that may be available now, both domestically and from an international human rights perspective.

Panelists will include:  Susan Reverby, Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Wellesley College; I. Glenn Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty Co-Director, Petrie-Flom Center, Harvard Law School; Holly Fernandez Lynch, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; Wendy Parmet,  George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law; Fernando Ribeiro Delgado, Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School.

And later today:

“The Supreme Court of India

and the Implementation of Human Rights”

A Panel of Distinguished Guests

5- 7 pm

Wasserstein 1010

This panel discussion, moderated by Professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law School, will feature: Chief Justice Altamas Kabir of the Supreme Court of India; Justice Swatanter Kumar of the Supreme Court of India; Justice Arijit Pasayat, of the Supreme Court of India; Shri Salman Khurshid, Honourable Minister for Law and Justice; G.E.Vahanvati, Attorney General of India; T.K. Viswanathan, Secretary General of the Indian Parliament; Rakesh Munjal, Senior Advocate; and Professor S. V. Sivakumar, Director of the Indian Law Institute.

This event is being co-sponsored by International Legal Studies and the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research.

Reforming the Justice System for Rape Survivors in Pakistan

Posted by Zainab Qureshi, LLM ‘12

Last March, a 13-year-old girl named Ayesha was gang-raped by three men in the small village of Ratta Amral, which is situated on the rural outskirts of the city of Rawalpindi. I was many thousands of miles away when it happened, finishing up my LLM degree at Harvard Law School. I had always wanted to work in human rights litigation—women’s rights, in particular. But even I had never heard of Ayesha’s case.

This is not surprising. Even as sexual violence continues to escalate in Pakistan, only a small proportion of reported incidents of rape get much attention, let alone result in convictions. From the moment the rape survivors and their families file a complaint with the police, they face immense pressure to recant their statements and resolve the matter “out of court.” The pressure comes not only from the accused, but from the family of the accused—and often in connivance with the police, the prosecutors, and the judges.

In Pakistan, because rape is considered an offence committed against the state, a case cannot be settled between the parties out of court, for example, in exchange for compensation. Still, “out of court settlements” do exist in these cases; they are simply brokered by the accused and the state agents. Judges then rely on these settlements to exercise their power (under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure) to acquit the accused at any stage of the trial, provided the probability of a conviction is slim or non-existent.

This is exactly what happened to Ayesha, as I found out when I returned home to Pakistan to work for the law firm of Raja Muhammad Akram & Co. The firm had taken on her case, and for good reason: Ayesha’s case illustrated everything that was wrong with the justice system for women in Pakistan.

Shortly after the rape, facing isolation in her village and inaction by the police, Ayesha tried to commit suicide. Finally, the media became interested, and the Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, through a suo moto action, took notice of the police negligence and apathy, ordering an investigation.

But when the case was at trial in the District Courts, Ayesha’s family was coerced into an “out of court settlement” with the accused parties, pressured by both the police and a jirga (informal village council) constituting of members of their community. The Prosecutor General then accepted the settlement as a basis for dropping the charges against the accused parties.

To address the prevalence of such miscarriages of justice in Pakistan’s criminal justice system, our firm filed a petition, titled Salman Akram Raja and Another v. Government of Punjab and others, under the public interest jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The petition asked, first of all, for the issuance of direction to the Prosecutor to proceed with action against the accused parties (including the negligent police officers), which the Supreme Court accepted, directing the District Courts to resume the trial.

The second part of the petition ran into more resistance. It asked for the issuance of directions to the lower courts, police, and prosecutors for the institution of safeguards to insulate rape survivors and their families from pressures to enter into “out of court settlements” with the accused.

The safeguards we proposed are based upon extensive research on the successful conduct of rape trials in comparative jurisdictions. They include establishment of rape crisis cells at police stations; mandatory DNA testing and preservation of DNA samples in rape cases; in camera trials, placing of screens between the survivor and the accused in court; and allowing survivors’ statements to be recorded through videoconferencing.

After several delays and adjournments, the entire petition was finally accepted by the Supreme Court on October 4. However, the final order remains pending.

The trial of the accused parties is underway in the District Courts, and the accused—along with the jirga members, who coerced the family to enter into the settlement—are currently in remand, a form of imprisonment during trial. During the last hearing, one Supreme Court Justice fittingly commented: “What has happened to Ayesha can never be reversed. However, we can extract something positive from this case by ensuring that such miscarriages of justice do not reoccur.”

For media coverage of the case, click here and here.

Zainab Qureshi, LLM ’12, is an associate at the law firm of Raja Mohammad Akram & Co. in Lahore. She is also an independent consultant on maternal mortality litigation in Pakistan for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Announced at HRP Event: UN to Investigate Civilian Deaths from Drone Strikes

Posted by Cara Solomon

At a packed event co-sponsored by HRP and the Harvard National Security and Law Association, Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, announced a UN investigation yesterday into civilian deaths from drone attacks, as well as other forms of targeted killings conducted during counter-terrorism operations.

In his remarks, which you can read here, Emmerson took aim at the Obama administration for neither confirming nor denying the existence of the U.S. drone program- while publicly trying to justify the legality of drone strikes.

“In reality the administration is holding its finger in the dam of public accountability,” he said, according to the prepared remarks. “There are now a large number of law suits, in different parts of the world, including in the UK, Pakistan and in the US itself, through which pressure for investigation and accountability is building.”

He pointed to figures from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism that suggest at least 474 civilians have been killed in Pakistan alone, and that 176 children are reported among the deaths. (For more on civilian deaths from drones, here is a joint report recently released from Stanford University and New York University, “Living Under Drones.”)

Emmerson also delved into the U.S. presidential elections, particularly around the issue of waterboarding, which Obama believes is torture. Mitt Romney has said he does not believe it is torture.

“Let us be clear on this,” Emmerson said. “Secret detention is unlawful as a matter of international law.  Water-boarding is always torture.  Torture is an international crime of universal jurisdiction. The torturer, like the pirate before him, is regarded in international law as the enemy of all mankind.  There is, therefore, a duty on States to investigate and to prosecute acts of torture.”

Mindy Roseman, Academic Director for HRP, said she was struck by the substance of his speech. The event has already made international news.

“Emmerson’s announcement is bold and courageous, and at the very least should renew interest in holding the US government accountable for military actions, such as drone strikes, ostensibly undertaken to stop terrorism,” she said.

For those with particularly sharp eyes, here is a classroom video of the event. And here is a selection of media coverage of Emmerson’s speech:

The Guardian

The Washington Post

The Harvard Crimson

Common Dreams