The Human Rights Blog

The wheels of justice in Argentina

Today is March 24th, 2008, the 32nd anniversary of the military coup in Argentina that resulted in the disappearance of 30,000 people and the extra-judicial executions of untold more. March 24th is now the national day of memory for truth and justice in Argentina. Throughout the country, there will be marches, demonstrations and cultural activities to mark the day, remember the disappeared and demand truth and justice.

Thirty two years after the coup, justice has never been closer in Argentina, and yet so far away. In recent years, the legal impunity that prevented Argentine courts from prosecuting human rights violators for most of their crimes was abolished. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Punto Final and Due Obedience laws, which provided blanket amnesties for the military and its accomplices, were unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the gross human rights violations committed in Argentina amounted to crimes against humanity, which do not prescribe and cannot be amnestied under international law, in addition the state has a positive obligation under human rights treaty and customary international law to seek the truth and bring justice to victims of gross human rights violations. Last year, the court used the same rationale in ruling that the pardons issued by a democratic president to the highest military and civilian authorities for their participation in such human rights violations, were also unconstitutional. There are now no legal impediments in Argentina to bringing human rights violators to justice.

There are, however, practical impediments. The wheels of justice move impossibly slowly in Argentina. Of the thousand criminal procedures that remain open, only a handful have reached the trial stage and some of these concerned figures relatively low on the totem pole of Argentine repression. Moreover, most of these trials have involved only one defendant at a time, which frustrates any expectation of celerity in the overall achievement of justice. Even worse, defendants have been tried only for the abduction, torture and murder of a very reduced number of victims, rather than the dozens or even hundreds or thousands for which they were responsible. There is an element of injustice when a human rights violator is not forced to account for all the violations he committed.

At this time, however, there is a movement to consolidate the open cases by clandestine detention centers, and try all those accused of committing human rights violations in a given center together. One such case concerns the clandestine detention center located in Infantry Regiment No. 9 of the province of Corrientes, and that trial seems to be proceeding without any serious problems. However, prosecutors and judges have warned that there is a bottleneck at the trial court stage and that this will slow down once again the wheels of justice. In particular, the ESMA case - based on the largest clandestine detention center in Argentina, through which an estimated 5,000 people passed before being killed - and the First Army Corps case, which concerns the task forces responsible for the detention and disappearance of people in the Buenos Aires and other provinces, may not reach the trial stage this year, as had been promised. One solution would be to reassign some of the cases to courts with a lighter workload. Another possible solution is to open another trial chamber. This has not yet been done.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. I am sure that many in Argentina would agree with that sentiment. There is a strong pressure by civil society on the Argentine government to take whatever measures are necessary to speed up the trials. Indeed, the recent announcement that judge Alfredo Bisordi was retiring from his post at the Cassation Court, after being accused of slowing down the repression cases, was greeted with cheers by both the government and the human rights organizations. But more pressure and more economic resources are doubtlessly needed if the victims - including the now elderly parents of many of the disappeared - are to find justice before they, or their victimizers, die.

Lack of speed is not the only problem that Argentine justice is facing, however. In September 2006, Julio López, one of the survivors and witnesses in the trial against Etchecolatz, the Police chief of the province of Buenos Aires during the dictatorship, was disappeared once again and his fate remains unknown. Other witnesses, lawyers and human rights defenders have also received threats. Meanwhile, a defendant linked to the ESMA and the theft of children, was found dead days before his sentence was read. It's still not clear whether his death was a murder or suicide. Other mysterious deaths of accused human rights violators have human rights organizations concerned.

On a more positive note, the arms of Argentine justice are now extending to the time prior to the dictatorship and to the Actions of the Triple A death squad, responsible for hundreds of murders under the government of Isabel Perón. Perón herself is being investigated, and her extradition from Spain has been requested. In a first for Argentine justice, the government of the province of Mendoza has filed a demand against the Triple A for the murder of its own citizens.

The wheels of justice have also began to turn in other Latin American countries. Chile, with its Prussian efficiency, has already sentenced over 190 human rights violators and has more than 100 open cases. It is now concentrating on prosecuting civilian accomplices. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has rejected a proposed bill which would reduce the sentences of human rights violators and further accelerate the criminal procedures. Despite its 1986 amnesty law, there are several open cases being investigated and tried in Uruguay on charges of crimes against humanity, in particular those relating to the so-called "death flights," through which Uruguayans detained and disappeared in Argentina were flown back to Uruguay. One former president and other top generals were jailed on such charges. Uruguay, moreover, has criminalized forced disappearances per se. Guatemala, meanwhile, has started its first trial on charges of forced disappearance and the trial of former president Fujimori for the disappearance and death of 9 students and one professor at La Cantuta university, is advancing with only minor difficulties in Peru. Honduras has also announced that it will re-open the cases of forced disappearances in the 1980s. On the other hand, the quest for justice in Colombia has taken yet another wrong turn after 11 prosecutors - including some working on key human rights cases such as that of the attack on the Justice Palace in 1985 - resigned after allegations of leaking information. And in El Salvador, civil society is still fighting for the derogation of the amnesty law which has left those responsible for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity scot-free. Meanwhile impunity for human rights violations, including forced disappearances, is de rigeur in Mexico.

Mixed as the Argentine and Latin American experiences are, I think they have much to say to the world in terms of the importance of keeping the struggle for justice alive, of not giving up and working both in the political and judicial arenas, both national and international, to put an end to impunity.

The Supreme Court of Spain affirms that the crimes committed by Adolfo Scilingo are crimes against humanity.

Communiqué of Equipo Nizkor

* 1) According to the official announcement of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court in Appeal nº 10049/2006-P, having completed its consideration of the case on 3rd July 2007, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, sitting in plenary session, agreed by a majority of 10 votes to 5, to resolve the appeal in the Scilingo case with two decisions, the text of which announcement is available at: http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/juicioral/doc/anuncio.html [ESL/SPA]

* 2) The clearest variation from the original judgement is that the application of the penalties has been modified, so that article 607 bis of the current Criminal Code - which punishes crimes against humanity - is not used. The Court applies the specific penalties provided in the current Criminal Code for the crimes of murder and unlawful detention but holds that these crimes “constitute crimes against humanity according to international law”.

* 3) The way in which this penalty is applied coincides with one of the two alternative proposals contained in the final conclusions submitted by the lawyer Antonio Segura on behalf of the Argentinian Human Rights Association of Madrid on 7th March 2005, at the end of the original trial, categorising the acts as crimes against humanity. This document stated as follows:

“b) Given the usual lack of provisions in domestic laws with reference to the establishment of specific penalties for crimes against humanity, their absence should not create an obstacle given that such crimes, being offences against fundamental legal rights, constitute international crimes because they are committed on a widespread or systematic scale with the participation or tolerance of the de iure or de facto political power. As a result the repression and sanction of these actions in internal law is dealt with by the normal criminal classifications of unlawful association, murder, assassination, bodily harm, torture, extortion, kidnapping etc. in all cases aggravated by reason of being acts committed on a systematic and widespread scale, carried out by state infrastructure and which violate the common conscience of humanity.”

The first alternative proposal which appeared in paragraph a) of the said document sought the application of article 607 bis. This was accepted unanimously by the Criminal Division of the National Court (Audiencia Nacional) and has now been modified by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court.

It is worth highlighting that the other accusing parties who appeared in the case, and in particular, those represented by the lawyers Manuel Ollé, Carmen Lamarca, José Luis Galán y Carlos Slepoy, sought the application of the crimes of Genocide and Terrorism, classifications which were dismissed by the Third Section of the National Court Criminal Division and further dismissed by the Plenary Session of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court.

* 4) The application of this criterion by the Plenary Session of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, results in an apparent increase in the applicable punishment, as this is now raised from the 640 years imprisonment set by the Third Section of the Criminal Divison of the National Court to approximately 1,084 years. In fact the effective penalty is reduced from 30 to 25 years following the maximum limits for enforcement of penalties provided for under article 76.1a) of the current Criminal Code.

* 5) The Plenary Session of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to the official announcement released on 03Jul07, rejected the attempt to convict Adolfo Scilingo for the crimes of Genocide and Terrorism and have affirmed the basis for the judgement of the Third Division of the National Court that the acts committed by Adolfo Scilingo constitute crimes against humanity.

* 6) Given that the basis for the judgement and individual voting is still not known, Equipo Nizkor will present a more detailed analysis as soon as the judgement in full is made available by the relevant Division of the Supreme Court.

Madrid (Spain), Brussels (Belgium) and Bahía Blanca (Argentina) 4th July 2007
Gregorio Dionis, president of Equipo Nizkor

Update on criminal procedures in Spain

Just a quick update on what’s going on in Spain with the criminal procedures against Scilingo and Cavallo, for those who are interested.

As you may recall, Cavallo, an Argentine Navy officer, was extradited from Mexico to Spain some years ago to face charges of genocide, terrorism and torture. He’s been in jail in Spain ever since while his case was being investigated. A few months ago, the investigative part of the case was finished, and the case was due to go on to the trial phase. Instead, the trial court suddenly decided that it didn’t have jurisdiction in the case and freed him. Argentina hurried to request his extradition, albeit on lesser charges. Meanwhile the prosecutors appealed the lack of jurisdiction. The Spanish government announced that it would ask Mexico for permission to extradite Cavallo to Spain, but Mexico said that it wouldn’t consider the matter until the Supreme Court ruled in the matter of jurisdiction. That was due to happen this month. Instead, Cavallo’s defense has presented a request that Perfecto Andrés Ibañez, the judge in charge of the case be recused, as his ideology is similar to that of the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has decided to rule on this issue first.

Meanwhile, Scilingo, as you may recall, was found guilty of crimes against humanity in 2005 and sentenced to several centuries in prison. His case is also being appealed both by his defense lawyers, and by some of the popular accusations which argue that he should have been convicted of genocide instead. The Supreme Court is also due to decided on this case soon.

Given that Cavallo’s defense is the same as that of Scilingo’s, and that Scilingo’s defense has also requested that Garzon be recused on the same grounds that Ibañez, it’s likely that if the court rules against Ibañez in the Cavallo case, it will also rule against Garzón.

We are at a very high risk of impunity reigning again in Spain.

Spanish judges let Argentine repressors off the hook.

It's a good time to be an Argentinian human rights violator in Spain. Once upon a time Spain was in the spotlight for its progressive application of international human rights law. In 1998 Pinochet was arrested in London at the request of Spanish judicial authorities, in 2003 Argentine repressor Miguel Cavallo was extradited to Spain from Mexico and in 2005, Argentine captain Adolfo Scilingo was found guilty of committing crimes against humanity. That same year, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal ruled that Spain had universal jurisdiction over human rights violations.

But the tide has turned, and a new class of conservative judges has taken over the National Audience, Spain's trial chambers. They are associated with fundamentalist currents within the Catholic Church and sometimes espouse Franquist ideologies; Judge Guevara Marcos, the President of the Chamber in charge of the Cavallo trial, for example, is a Catholic fundamentalist close to Opus Dei who was sanctioned by the General Council of the Judicial Power for racist attitudes. These judges are antagonistic to criminal procedures against human rights violators in general, and seem determined to rid Spain of these cases.

Miguel Cavallo was part of Task Force 3.3.2, an inter-force squad charged with kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected "subversives," among others. Later, Cavallo joined the Argentine Foreign Task Force that went to Central America to train others in counter-insurgence and torture techniques. In 2000, Cavallo was located in Mexico and in 2003 he was extradited to Spain. Finally, in February 2005 the instructional phase of the procedures against Cavallo concluded, and the case passed to the trial stage.

Since then, there have been a series of tactics put in place to delay his trial, which had not started by December 2006. In December 2006, moreover, the trial court suddenly decided it did not have jurisdiction over Cavallo, as he had also been indicted by courts in Argentina. This, despite clear language by the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal that Spain enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity. The trial court gave Argentina 40 days to present documentation upon which to base an extradition. This was done in the height of Argentine summer, when courts are on vacation. The Argentine court scrambled to send the documentation on time, but this was not forwarded to the National Audience, and Cavallo was set free.

Cavallo has now stated he will present himself for voluntary extradition. That would be to his advantage, as he then can negotiate the charges on which he will be extradited - and he will not have to face additional charges when he arrives in Argentina. These charges are likely to be limited to the murder of journalist Rodolfo Walsh, and perhaps a few other murders - but will most likely not be for crimes against humanity as such. This will mean he will not have to testify about his involvement in either task force described above. Moreover, Cavallo will be freed in June 2007, when his pre-trial detention ends. It can take several years before a trial in Argentina starts, if at all, so he would be de-facto a free man.

The same may happen with Juan Carlos Fotea, a former counter- intelligence agent and member of the Foreign Task Force that operated in Central America during the 1980s. Despite the fact that Fotea had been indicted numerous times by Garzon as early as 1997, Garzon has suddenly decided that Spain no longer has jurisdiction over Fotea, for similar reasons to those claimed in the Cavallo case. Fotea's case is being appealed. Meanwhile bail has been set and reduced for Fotea, and it's likely that at some point he'll be released on his own recognizance.

The legal strategy being pursued in Spain appears to be designed to minimize the number of the accused and the severity of the charges against them. Trials in Argentina will likely result in the accused being tried on common crimes rather than crimes against humanity (as Scilingo was in Spain). Being tried for a crime such as murder will require a greater level of evidence to convict the accused of a particular crime - rather than demonstrating a particular behavior and/or membership in a criminal organization which led to the commission of crimes - and minimizes the seriousness of the crimes and the potential punishment those accused have to face.

So if you are a Latin American human rights violator, you could do worse than visiting Spain.

German Prosecutor Asked to Investigate Rumsfeld

November 14, 2006
NYT
German Prosecutor Asked to Investigate Rumsfeld

By MARK LANDLER FRANKFURT, Nov. 14 -- Emboldened by the resignation
last week of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, lawyers today
asked a German prosecutor to investigate Mr. Rumsfeld on allegations
of war crimes, stemming from the treatment of prisoners held in
military jails in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The 220-page lawsuit, filed with the German federal prosecutor in
Karlsruhe, names 11 other current and former American officials,
including Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whom it alleges
either ordered the torture of prisoners or drafted laws that
legitimated its use.

The suit, filed by civil rights legal groups on behalf of 12
detainees -- 11 Iraqis and a Saudi -- alleges they were subjected to
beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of food, and sexual
humiliation.

"Even if we never put Rumsfeld on trial in a German court, he will be
harassed and publicly stamped as a torturer," said Wolfgang Kaleck, a
Berlin attorney who filed the complaint, together with the Center for
Constitutional Rights, an American group, and other legal organizations.

Mr. Kaleck acknowledged that Germany would be reluctant to prosecute
top American officials. But he described a protracted legal
procedure, during which he suggests Mr. Rumsfeld might encounter
trouble traveling to Germany or other European Union countries.
Lawyers, he said, were also ready to file complaints in Spain,
Belgium, Argentina and other nations.

For Mr. Rumsfeld, who is soon to lose the legal protection of his
Cabinet post, the prospect of foreign lawsuits could be an irritant
when he travels overseas as a private citizen, according to legal
experts.

A spokeswoman for the Pentagon, Cynthia Smith, declined to comment on
the lawsuit because she had not seen it. The Pentagon denies
torturing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad or at
Guantanamo.

The German prosecutor's office confirmed it had received the document
and said it would begin reviewing it.

This is the second time lawyers have asked German prosecutors to
investigate Mr. Rumsfeld. Prosecutors turned down a request in
February 2005, saying that German courts should not assert
jurisdiction in a case that would be better handled by prosecutors in
the United States.

The lawyers contend that almost two years later, the United States
has done little to investigate the role of senior Bush administration
officials in the treatment of prisoners who are suspected terrorists.

Moreover, they contend, the Military Commissions Act, passed by
Congress in September, will make it harder to prosecute American
officials at home for alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions.
The act provides retroactive immunity dating to the attacks of Sept.
11, 2001.

"We've had two years of complete inaction by the Bush
administration," said Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch, which is supporting the case. "They've been very good
at prosecuting lower-level officials, but done nothing to investigate
high-level officials."

The lawsuit is ambitious, naming not only Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr.
Gonzales, but also John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, two former Justice
Department lawyers who helped draft the Bush administration's legal
arguments for treatment of suspected terrorists. It also names Lt.
Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the military's former commander in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski, who commanded Abu Ghraib and was
punished for the abuses there, has offered to testify.

While the first lawsuit focused on Abu Ghraib, this one includes as a
plaintiff Mohammed al- Qahtani, a Saudi who is believed by many to
have participated in the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks. A lawyer
for Mr. al-Qahtani, who is being held in Guantanamo, alleges that his
client was subjected to abuse authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld.

The lawyers said they chose to file the suit in Germany for legal and
political reasons. German law has the principle of universal
jurisdiction, under which courts are entitled to prosecute people for
war crimes, regardless of where they live or where the crimes were
committed.

Germany, despite its opposition to the war in Iraq, also has a web of
connections to the United States military. Several military officials
implicated in the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib were stationed at
American bases in Germany; some returned to Germany after their tours
in Iraq.

American air bases in Germany are used for military flights to and
from Iraq. The German Parliament is investigating whether some of
those flights included transfers of suspected terrorists to secret
prisons -- the so-called rendition program run by the Central
Intelligence Agency.

The lawsuit comes at an awkward time for Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who has been trying to put German-American relations on a firmer
footing after the deep mistrust generated by the Iraq war.

Prosecuting high-level officials for war crimes in foreign countries
has a patchy record, according to legal experts. A Spanish judge was
unable to win the extradition of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean
dictator, to face trial there for crimes against humanity. But
General Pinochet was held in London, and later returned to Chile.
Last month, the 90-year-old was put under house arrest in Santiago on
charges including kidnapping, torture and murder at a secret
detention center in the early years of his rule.

Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state, has been sought for
questioning by courts in numerous countries about American
involvement with various Latin American dictatorships in the 1970's.

"If I were Rumsfeld's travel agent, I would advise him to choose some
other part of 'old Europe,' " said Detlev F. Vagts, emeritus
professor of international law at Harvard Law School. "There is some
danger out there."

The timing of today's lawsuit was not directly tied to Mr. Rumsfeld's
resignation, according to Mr. Kaleck. The lawyers waited until the
week after the elections in the United States to avoid being labeled
political. Still, they said, Mr. Rumsfeld's departure gives the
lawsuit an extra edge.

"Rumsfeld now seems to be less protected than he was before," said
Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional
Rights, which is paying for part of the legal campaign.

Neil A. Lewis contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

---

http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/2931264/

Center for Constitutional Rights

Background Brief on the case against Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others.
Filed in Germany on Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Executive Summary of the Complaint’s Allegations:

From Donald Rumsfeld on down, the political and military leaders in charge of ordering, allowing and implementing abusive interrogation techniques in the context of the “War on Terror” since September 11, 2001, must be investigated and held accountable. The complaint alleges that American military and civilian high-ranking officials named as defendants in the case have committed war crimes against detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the U.S.-controlled Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

The complaint alleges that the defendants “ordered” war crimes, “aided or abetted” war crimes, or “failed, as civilian superiors or military commanders, to prevent their commission by subordinates, or to punish their subordinates,” actions that are explicitly criminalized by German law. The U.S. administration has treated hundreds if not thousands of detainees in a coercive manner, in accordance with “harsh interrogation techniques” ordered by Secretary Rumsfeld himself that legally constitute torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in blatant violation of the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1984 Convention Against Torture and the 1977 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- to all of which the United States is a party. Under international humanitarian treaty and customary law, and as re-stated in German law, these acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment constitute war crimes.

The U.S. torture program that resulted in war crimes was aided and abetted by the government lawyers also named in this case: former Chief White House Counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto R. Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II. While some of them claim to merely have given legal opinions, those opinions were false, or clearly erroneous, and given in a context where it was known and foreseeable to these lawyers that torture would be the result. Not only was torture foreseeable, but this legal advice was given to facilitate and aid and abet torture as well as to attempt to immunize those who tortured. Without these opinions, the torture program could not have occurred. The infamous “Torture Memo” dated August 1, 2002, is the key document that redefined torture so narrowly that such classic and age old torture techniques as
wate
r-boarding were authorized to be employed and were employed by U.S. officials against detainees.

Why Germany?

The complaint is being filed under the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted by Germany in compliance with the Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court in 2002, which Germany ratified. The CCIL provides for “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. It enables the German Federal Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute crimes constituting a violation of the CCIL, irrespective of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the persons involved.
No international courts or personal tribunals in Iraq were mandated to conduct investigations and prosecutions of responsible U.S. officials. The United States has refused to join the International Criminal Court, thereby foreclosing the option of pursuing a prosecution in international courts. Iraq has no authority to prosecute. Furthermore, the U.S. gave immunity to all its personnel in Iraq from Iraqi prosecution. All this added to the United States’ unquestionable refusal to look at the responsibility of those of the very top of the chain of command and named in the present complaint, and the recent passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (see below) aimed at preventing war crimes prosecutions against Americans in the U.S., German courts are seen as a last resort to obtain justice for those victims of abuse and torture while detained by the United States.

The Plaintiffs in the Case:

The complaint is being filed on behalf of 11 Iraqi citizens who were victims of gruesome crimes at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. They were severely beaten, deprived of sleep and food, sexually abused, stripped naked and hooded, and exposed to extreme temperatures.

Another plaintiff in the case is Mohammed al Qahtani, a Saudi citizen detained at Guantánamo since January 2002. At Guantánamo, Mr. al Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the “First Special Interrogation Plan,” that were authorized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, defendant Major General Geoffrey Miller. These methods included fifty days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation.

None of these plaintiffs -- and the hundreds of other detainees subjected to similar abuses -- has seen justice, and none of those who authorized these techniques at the top of the chain of command have been held liable for it, or even seriously and independently investigated.

The Defendants in the Case:

The U.S. high-ranking officials charged include:

-- Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
-- Former CIA Director George Tenet
-- Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Stephen Cambone
-- Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez
-- Major General Walter Wojdakowski
-- Major General Geoffrey Miller
-- Colonel Thomas Pappas
-- Former Chief White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales
-- Former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee
-- Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo
-- General Counsel of the Department of Defense William James Haynes, II
-- Vice President Chief Counsel David S. Addington

The 2004 Complaint:

In November 2004, the previous German Federal Prosecutor failed to prosecute an earlier complaint against many of these same defendants filed by CCR with the support of FIDH and RAV. The U.S. pressured Germany to drop the case, saying not doing so would jeopardize U.S.-German relations, and the complaint was ultimately dismissed in February 2005 on the eve of a visit by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Munich, Germany. In dismissing the case, the Prosecutor stated: “there are no indications that the authorities and courts of the United States of America are refraining, or would refrain, from penal measures as regards the violations described in the complaint.” The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 immunizing officials and others from prosecution and much new evidence shows this is not the case.

The Impact of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

The Military Commissions Act was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and it protects U.S. officials and military personnel by:

1) narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act and making those revisions retroactive to November 26, 1997; and by

2) retroactively extending a defense for criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001.

These immunizing provisions essentially grant an amnesty for international crimes, including war crimes and torture. The retroactivity provision directs that prosecutions of war crimes committed since 1997 will fall under the new, narrowed range of standards and interpretations of war crimes, which would protect civilians from being prosecuted for committing acts that would have been considered war crimes under the old definition -- thereby explicitly aiming at immunizing American officials and others from prosecution in their country.

How the 2006 Complaint Is a Stronger Case:

The grounds for the 2005 dismissal are no longer justified:

The prosecutor’s original decision to dismiss the case was solely based on the assumption that an ongoing investigation was being carried out in the U.S. regarding the Abu Ghraib scandal. We now have extensive evidence that demonstrates that this investigation was directed only towards the criminal culpability of the lowest ranking military personnel. Indeed, some of these very defendants have been, or are being, rewarded with higher-level appointments and medals. The investigative and prosecutorial functions in the United States are currently directly controlled by the ones involved in the conspiracy to perpetrate war crimes and named in this complaint, which politically blocks possible investigations and criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is unquestionably the clearest illustration of such unwillingness to prosecute Americans for war crimes.

New evidence:

Extraordinary new materials, documentation and testimonies that have come to light over the past two years -- about what the plaintiffs went through (Mr. al Qahtani is a new plaintiff to the case), about the signed memos that led to the justification and practice of torture, and about the defendants’ personal involvement -- only strengthen the case.

In addition, former U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, a defendant in the earlier complaint as the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib, is now providing testimony and will testify on behalf of the plaintiffs.

New additional defendants:

The new complaint charges the government lawyers alleged to be the legal architects of the Bush Administration’s practice of torture.

Rumsfeld can no longer claim sovereign immunity:

Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 8, 2006, means that he cannot claim either the functional or personal immunity of sovereign officials from international prosecution for war crimes. Functional immunity -- related to acts performed in the exercise of a person’s official functions -- does not, since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, apply to international crimes such as war crimes. As to personal immunity -- covering officials’ private acts accomplished while in office -- it only applies during the individual’s term of office.

Unprecedented support for the case:

When filing a complaint to the Federal Prosecutor, any group may join the complaint as a “co-plaintiff,” which demonstrates the support of these groups and their common request for the opening of an investigation. Co-plaintiffs in the present case include:

Individuals

1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner Aldolfo Perez Esquirel (Argentine),
2002 Alternative Nobel Peace Prize winner Martín Almada (Paraguay),
Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture,
Sister Dianna Ortiz, (Torture survivor, Executive Director of TASSC)

International and Regional NGOs

FIDH: International Federation for Human Rights
The International Peace Bureau (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1910)
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA)
European Democratic Lawyers
European Democratic Jurists,
International Association of Democratic Lawyers

National NGOs

Argentina: Comité de Acción Jurídica (CAJ)
Argentina: Liga Argentina por los Derechos del Hombre
Bahrain: Bahrain Human Rights Society (BHRS)
Canada: Lawyers against the War (LAW)
Colombia: Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo
Democratic Republic of Congo: Association Africaine des Droits de l’Homme (ASADHO)
Egypt: Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR)
France: Ligue Française des Droits de l'Homme (LDH)
Germany: The Republican Attorneys' Association (RAV)
Jordan: Amman Center for Human Rights Studies (ACHR)
Mexico: Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH)
Mexico: Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH)
Nicaragua: Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH)
Palestine: Palestinian Center for Human Rights
Tchad: Association Tchadienne pour la Promotion et la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (ATPDH)
Senegal: Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO)
USA: The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
USA: National Lawyers’ Guild (NLG)
USA: Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC)
USA: Veterans for Peace

Pardons ruled unconstitutional in Argentina

An Argentine court ruled today that the Presidential pardons that the Menem government has conferred on former Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz and former Minister of Interior Alvaro Harguindeguy were unconstitutional because the crimes they are accused of constitute crimes against humanity. Martinez de Hoz and Harguindeguy are being investigated for their role in the kidnapping of two businessmen, whom they tried to extort into accepting a business deal beneficial for the military government.

This is the first time that the pardons, granted by the Menem government on all the top military, police and civilian leadership accused and/or convicted of murder, torture and kidnapping during the dirty war, were overturned. Last year, the so-called "amnesty laws" were also overturned on the ground of unconstitutionality, as they also concerned crimes against humanity.

I think these rulings are of immense importance beyond Argentina's borders, given their foundation on international law. What they say is that both general amnesties and individual pardons for acts that constitute crimes against humanity are illegal. This was previously clear vis a vis self-amnesties but not against those granted by civilian governments. It may take 30 years of work and struggle as it did in Argentina, it may even take longer - but justice can be served.

The Price of Healing

A very interesting article by IRIN news on the monetary price of tribunals against people accused of crimes against humanity - and their relative success.

I agree with most of what they say, but I wish they had included information about Argentina, which has opened 959 criminal procedures and given preventive prison to 211 people, since the amnesty laws were declared unconstitutional. I don't know what the costs of these procedures are, but it bears investigating as a place of comparison.

IRIN News
4 August 2006

The Price of Healing

A joke used to circulate among more cynical aid workers about the
international community's attitude to justice. It said that if you
commit one murder you get sent to trial and prison. If you commit
ten, you get sent to an insane asylum. If you commit ten thousand
you get sent to Geneva for peace talks.

That joke no longer holds true in the age of international justice
that now exists. In the 1990s, international criminal tribunals were
set up to try those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity,
and genocide that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and in Rwanda,
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). In 2002, the
International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent war crimes
tribunal, came into being, heralding the end of impunity.

An enormous amount of money is now spent on the pursuit of international
justice. In his 2004 report to the Security Council, Kofi Annan, the
Secretary Genera,l admitted that the two ad hoc criminal tribunals set up
to try those accused of human rights violations in Rwanda and the former
Yugoslavia had "a combined annual budget exceeding a quarter of a billion
dollars - equivalent to more than 15 percent of the Organisation's
total regular budget". The figure has since risen: the budget for the
ICTY alone for 2006-2007 is over $275 million. As Carla Del Ponte,
the Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY admitted "Justice is not cheap". The
question is whether this level of expenditure can be justified when
there are so many ways that those sums of money could be otherwise spent.

Comparative costs

The cost of war in Iraq has been estimated at costing the USA up to
$230 million per day, i.e. almost the annual budget of the ICTY. The
cost of collecting garbage in New York alone is more than the annual
UN regular budget. And in terms of the relative cost of justice, the
international courts are not more expensive than some domestic trials. As
Paul van Zyl, Director of Country Programmes at the International Center
for Transitional Justice, told IRIN: "If you compare dollar for dollar the
amount that it costs to convict the most senior people before the ICTY,
with what it costs to convict for example a Mafia boss in the United
States or the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber,
the amounts are comparable." It is also important to remember the crimes
that the people being tried are alleged to have committed: massacres,
genocide, systematic rape and torture. In national courts, we expect
lesser crimes to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. Should
a different level of justice be applied externally?

As Paul van Zyl points out: "Most people would balk at the idea
that you should not prosecute mafia crime lords on the basis that
it is too expensive. When you look at the kind of people who are
being prosecuted before the ICTY and the ICTR, they are responsible
often for tens, and sometimes hundreds, of thousands of deaths."

Money well spent?

Allegations are sometimes made that the money expended on these tribunals
could be better spent on infrastructure in the communities most affected.
Corinne Dufka, of the nongovernmental organisation (NGO) Human Rights
Watch, acknowledges that victims of decades of abusive governance or war
would often prefer that the money be spent on their day-to-day needs,
but adds "that should not be the indicator. There has to be big picture
thinking. That includes helping people understand how important justice is
for the longer term".

Justice Geoffrey Robertson, QC a human rights lawyer and formerly
judge at the Sierra Leone Special Court, refutes the argument from
a different angle: "the money that is being invested in global justice
would simply not be made available for infrastructure or policing or even
for compensation for victims". He believes that if international justice
provides some closure to victims and deters others in the future, even
to a limited extent, then this "is money well spent".

The reason for the size of the expenditure is that the cases that are
being brought are highly complex. They often involve multiple defendants,
hundreds of witnesses and wide-ranging investigations, often not conducted
in the first language of the witnesses. The wheels of law are famously
slow to turn, and so much more so when they are dealing with subjects
of this magnitude. Yet some observers feel that perpetrators of crimes
against humanity do not deserve such detailed and costly attention to
due process and their rights, especially given how little they observed
the human rights of others.

Justice that they themselves denied

Some question whether alleged perpetrators of atrocities should be
provided with a standard of justice that they themselves denied
their victims. Even Amnesty International, an NGO which investigates
human rights abuses and advocates against them, argued at the time
that the Rome Statute was being drafted (the statute which created
the International Criminal Court), that alleged perpetrators should
be denied the standard defences of duress, necessity and self-defence.
Justice Geoffrey Roberston QC points out in his book "Crimes Against
Humanity" that "What was truly ironic was their zeal for a court
so tough that it would actually violate the basic human rights of
its defendants".

Such arguments can justify much less costly alternatives. Nicholae
Ceaucescu, the former dictator of Romania, was hurriedly tried and
convicted before a domestic military court on 25 December 1989,
before being shot, along with his wife, by a firing squad. Rounding up
and summary execution was also Winston Churchill's preferred method of
dealing with the Nazi commanders after World War II, though this method
was overruled by the US, France and Russia.

This method of dealing with those responsible for human rights abuses has
the benefit of being quick and cheap. However, it does not comply with
basic legal procedures of hearing evidence and judging guilt or innocence.
In societies which have been affected by conflict or brutal regimes,
and which are undergoing a process of transition to stability, the
establishment of a rule of law, and the following of a legal process,
is of paramount importance. As Dennis McNamara, UN Special Adviser on
Internal Displacement, told IRIN: "Post-conflict countries are often
in the mess they are in because of a lack of a functioning legal system
to protect civilians. "

If a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for law and order
to prevail, it requires more than simply conducting a trial of the
head of state under internationally respected legal norms. A thorough
investigation of abuses is necessary in order to remove those responsible
from all levels of power. The Sierra Leone Truth Commission Report
emphasised this aspect of the judicial process: "One of the objectives of
the Court was to break the command structure of the criminal organisation
responsible for the violence." This not only makes the perpetrators
publicly accountable but also serves to build a public perception of
confidence in the legal system, demonstrating that the old guard are
no longer in control. The very process of justice can play an important
part in healing the wounds of a society and publicly underlining that
a change has taken place.

A healing process

In addition to the need to establish law and order, investigations can
themselves contribute to the healing process. Indeed, truth commissions
- accompanied by judicial enquiry - can unearth evidence as to what
occurred. This has been proven to help victims in that it provides
recognition of their suffering and sometimes even helps them to find
the bodies of loved ones; it also provides a testament which discourages
any revisionist history. Survivors are often afraid that what they
experienced will be forgotten or denied. Augustin Nkusi, a Director at
the National Service for Gacaca Jurisdictions in Rwanda makes the point
with respect to the ICTR: "There is a need for what happened in Rwanda to
be recognised at an international level to avoid any revisionist history.
It is a great testimony to what happened."

In effect, investigating, arresting and punishing individuals found
guilty of abuses seems to help societies to make the transition to a
peaceful existence. In that context, the cost of enforcing international
justice is dwarfed by the cost of not doing so, ongoing conflict and war,
and the ensuing developmental cost that conflict entails.

But justice is a slow process. The ICTY and the ICTR still rumble on.
The numbers of people convicted during the 12 and 13 years respectively
since the tribunals were established are not impressive. At the ICTR,
15 people have been found guilty and a further eight are appealing
their convictions. At the ICTY, 42 people have been found guilty with
a further 12 still appealing their convictions. Slobodan Milosevic,
the former President of Serbia, died in March 2006, near the end of
a three year trial, fuelling the concern that the millions of dollars
expended on his trial were a waste of money.

The cruel joke of deterrence?

Aside from justice, a commonly cited justification for the costs
involved in bringing criminals to the dock, is that it may deter
future perpetrators, saving money in the longer term. The argument is
that the prospect of accountability acts as a deterrent.

John Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, has countered this suggestion:
"Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed
where cold steel has failed? Holding out the prospect of ICC deterrence
to the weak and vulnerable amounts to a cruel joke."

The fact that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda is
still forcing children into becoming soldiers, and making sex slaves
of others, despite the issue of warrants by the ICC for the arrest of the
top five leaders, seems to validate Bolton's point. As does the continuing
genocide in Darfur, western Sudan, where ICC investigations are ongoing.

Paul van Zyl told IRIN that it was "important not to overstate the
deterrence argument. Human rights advocates can afford to be honest
and say that in some contexts it will deter and in some contexts if
you manage to incarcerate some perpetrators that will have an effect".

Referring to Joseph Kony, the leader of the LRA and Slobodan
Milosevic, he went on: "You also have to bear in mind the kind
of people who international tribunals go after. People who are
inclined to commit genocide and other atrocious crimes are not
the most deterrable kinds of people."

Alternatives

Having funded both the ICTR and the ICTY, the cost of justice is
a concern that the UN is aware of. As Kofi Annan pointed out in 2004,
"Partly in reaction to the high costs of the original tribunals,
the financial mechanisms of the mixed tribunals for Sierra Leone
and for Cambodia have been based entirely on voluntary contributions."
That is to say, money which individual donor countries have given.

However, the problem with voluntary contributions is that they may
not always be forthcoming and that politics is often brought into play.

The Khmer Rouge trials are an example of a process that has suffered
under what Kofi Annan termed "the vagaries of voluntary financing".
Cambodia was meant to provide $13 million of the proposed budget
of $56.3 million, but has so far been unable to do so. When
Japan came forward in June 2005 to provide the shortfall, cynical
commentators suggested that this was part of Japan's bid for a
permanent seat on the Security Council. Whether or not that is true,
the spectre of politics which consistently plagues the quest for
international justice, again entered the debate. The US, by contrast,
has been criticised for its failure to provide any funding for
the trials, despite its involvement in that region at the time.
Comparison has been drawn between its enthusiasm for the Iraqi
Special Tribunal, which was set up to try Saddam Hussein and
his accomplices and has received $128 million from the US, and
its attitude to the Khmer Rouge trials. There have however been
suggestions recently from Ambassador Pierre Prosper, from State's
Office of War Crimes Issues, that the US might contribute financially
to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal if it shows itself to be "independent"
and up to "international standards".

Justice on the cheap

The first hybrid tribunal to be set up was in Dili, East Timor. In 1999,
in the lead up to and aftermath of a referendum on the independence
of East Timor from Indonesia, there was widespread killing, rape
and destruction in the region. The UN Security Council authorised the
establishment of the UN Transitional Authority for East Timor (UNTAET)
on 25 October 1999. UNTAET then promulgated a law in 2000 giving the
Dili District Court authority to investigate genocide, war crimes,
crimes against humanity, sexual offences and torture which occurred
in East Timor between 1 January 1999 and 25 October 1999.

Though there is less information on this topic than other tribunals
with an international dimension, the trials conducted there have not
been widely held to be a success. Two major criticisms have emerged.
Firstly there has been a failure to prosecute any of the "big fish"
responsible for orchestrating the violence: those prosecuted have
been middle or low-ranking perpetarors. Secondly, the attempts to
attain justice have been frustrated by a crippling lack of funds.

The annual budget for the Dili District Court in 2001 was, according to
David Cohen, author of a report entitled 'Seeking Justice on the Cheap',
a mere $6.3 million. Of this, $6 million was allocated to the prosecution
and only $300,000 to the tribunal itself, most of which was spent on the
salaries of the international judges. According to the report, there were
no law clerks, administrators, researchers or even qualified translators.
At the time he reported there was not even a functioning Appeals Chamber.
This meant that proceedings were often chaotic and sometimes fell short
of what might be called internationally accepted standards. There was
no mechanism for producing transcripts, without which an appeal process
is almost impossible. As Mr Cohen points out: "Without an official
record of the trial how can defence counsel make a case and how can
the Appeal Chamber review it?"

The defence were even worse served in terms of budget. Unlike
the prosecution there was no money for them to cover the expenses
of bringing witnesses to trial. As a result in the first fourteen
cases heard, not one witness for the defence was called.

The failure in Dili to achieve a credible examination of the events
of 1999 or a credible prosecution was exacerbated by the concurrent
proceedings in Jakarta, Indonesia. The Indonesian Human Rights
Commission had found evidence that high level Indonesians had been
funding and instigating the atrocities in East Timor. Cases were
brought before the courts, but few of the major players were
convicted. Furthermore, the Indonesians refused to hand over any
indicted persons to the Dili courts. A UN Commission of Experts
sent in to examine the Indonesian proceedings, reported to Kofi
Annan in 2005 that they had fundamental concerns and suggested
that several of the trials should be re-opened. Kofi Annan has
so far failed to respond to the report.

An open letter to Kofi Annan of 24 March 2006, written by a coalition
of human rights organisations stated that "the demand for justice
and accountability remains a fundamental issue in the lives of many
East Timorese and a potential obstacle to building a democratic society
based upon respect for the rule of law and authentic reconciliation
between individuals, families, communities and nations."

The budget of the UNTAET-sponsored court in East Timor is dwarfed by
the amounts spent on other tribunals. The Sierra Leone Special Court
has an annual budget of approximately $100 million. As mentioned,
the ICTY biennial budget now exceeds $250 million. If justice is
to be equally applied in all instances, and if defendants are to be
provided with a credible attempt to defend themselves, then perhaps
it is true that assessed contributions remain necessary, and that
"the vagaries of voluntary financing" cannot be relied upon.

Money talks

The effect of finance on international justice extends beyond
the courtroom: it can also have a role in actually bringing those
most responsible for human rights abuses to the court.

The arrest of Slobodan Milosevic in April 2001 and his extradition
to the ICTY is widely believed to have come as a result of financial
pressure exerted upon Serbia by the US. Janes' Intelligence Review,
an intelligence gathering service, reported that the US Congress had
threatened to block a $100 million aid package to Serbia if Milosevic
was not handed over.

The European Union has also been using the language of finance and
commerce to apply pressure to the Serbian authorities to hand over
another suspected war criminal, Ratko Mladic. On 3 May 2006, it called
a halt to talks on Serbia's proposed accession to the European Union.
The Chief Prosecutor at the ICTY, Carla Del Ponte said: "The obvious
conclusion I can draw is that I was misled when I was told at the
end of March that the arrest of Mladic was a matter of days or weeks."

The EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn confirmed the suspension of
negotiations, saying: "I must say that it is disappointing that Belgrade
has been unable to locate, arrest and transfer Ratko Mladic to The Hague
The Commission is ready to resume negotiations as soon as Serbia accedes
full co-operation."

Few proponents of human rights are disturbed at this use of finance
to draw out suspected criminals. Alison Smith, of the NGO No Peace
Without Justice, is sanguine on the matter:

"We take the view that if it gets them there, then that's the important
thing. It does not sully justice, it helps it along. If one motive
for their handover is to get aid, then that's just the way it is."

Justice at any price

On a BBC website which posed the question: "Do you believe justice is
worth pursuing at any price?", Blessing Ruzengwe of Zimbabwe had this
to say: "Where there is poverty there is no justice. You have to address
poverty first." Another person added: "Justice is a luxury for Africans."

The headline figures of a quarter of a billion dollars expended every
two years on just one international tribunal while people go starving
fuel this perception. But can justice ever be considered a luxury or
is it a prerequisite for a civilised and ordered society? If Churchill
had had his way and money had not been spent on the Nuremberg trials,
international law would not have the concept of individual accountability
for acts committed supposedly on behalf of the state. That would mean
that those who ran the concentration camps and gassed prisoners would
not have been legally liable for their actions; and that those who ran
Interahamwe death squads in Rwanda could claim they were just following
orders. Spending money on justice is spending money on infrastructure:
not the infrastructure of roads, but the building blocks of a society
where human rights violators are made accountable. As Corinne Dufka,
of the NGO Human Rights Watch, points out: "Justice is an essential
pillar of a stable democracy."

Wanted: Eye Witness Testimonty to Israeli War Crimes

This is a message I got forwarded:

WANTED EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY TO ISRAELI WAR CRIMES

In a continuing effort to obtain the arrest of
high-ranking Israeli officers, when they travel
outside of Israel, several legal organisations are
looking to receive testimonies from internationals who
witnessed war crimes, whilst in the West Bank or Gaza.

These organisations are aware that every international
who has travelled to Palestine will have witnessed the
crimes of the occupation, however lawyers are seeking
cases which are strong enough to be submitted to
court, based on evidence provided by actual witnesses
to crimes.

The crimes they are looking for are:

House Demolitions � particularly where they were
extensive or carried out deliberately as a form of
punishment
Killings
Torture.

If you witnessed any of these, please write a short
email to the UK lawyer Daniel Machover at
dmachover@hickmanandrose.co.uk. You will need to
state:
1. Who was the victim
2. The date and time it happened
3. What happened preceding and after the event
4. Whether any Palestinians made a complaint at the time
and who has their testimony such as a local lawyer or
human rights organisation
5. What supporting evidence you have, such as photos or
video footage (please state whether this is unedited
or not.)

Cases are being prepared in several countries around
the world, so it doesn�t matter which country you are
living in, your testimony could prove useful
somewhere.

You do not have to make a decision now as to whether
you want to be a witness in court. This is a long-term
legal project, with the possibility that your
testimony might never be used - the lawyers at this
point are gathering information in order to build
cases. Lawyers will not use your name without your
permission

We are also seeking information on which commanders
and which military units were operating in which areas
at which times (now and in the past.) If you can
provide any names, even if you were not a witness to a
crime, this could prove useful.

For more information about this, please read news
story at

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3221339,00.html

If English is not your first language, help will be
given with translation. Please also forward this
email to any Palestinian living abroad who witnessed
or was a victim of war crimes and would like to
participate.

ICJ hears genocide case against Serbia

The International Court of Justice is holding hearings on the merits of a case brought by the Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia accusing the latter's of violation of the Genocide Convention. Article 9 of said convention provides the ICJ with jurisdiction to try this case.

The case was first brought on by Bosnia in 1993. The hearings are expected to end in May and a decision is not expected for another year.

Information about the hearings, including court press releases and pleadings is available at the ICJ's website at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ibhy/ibhyframe.htm

Living with race hate in Russia

The BBC has an interesting article in their site about the racism suffered by African students in Russia. Africans have been going to study in Russia since the time of the Soviet Union, when Russia thought it could increase its influence in Africa by educating its elite. But conditions for African students have become quite difficult in the last decade, as innate racism against them is enhanced by media images of black students as drug dealers. Many black students have been the victims of attacks by "hooligans", and several have even died - 3 Africans have been killed in St. Petesburg alone since September. The attackers are seldom punished "One thing democracy brought Russia was the freedom to insult and attack people and be sure of not being punished," said Gabriel Anicet Kotchofa, head of the Foreign Students' Association in Russia.