4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE I, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and JANE DOE II, on behalf of herself and : asadministratrix of the estate of : her deceased mother, and on behalf : Civil Action No. of all others similarly situated, : 93 Civ. 0878 (PKL) : Plaintiffs, : - against- : RADOVAN KARADZIC, : Defendant. : ______________________________________x. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT,S MOTION TO DISMISS Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization, respectfully submits this brief as amicus curiae in opposition to defendant Karadzic's motin to dismiss this action. CONTENTS Interest of Amicus Curiae 2 Argument 5 I. THE UNITED STATES HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN REDRESSING THE ATROCITIES ALLEGED HERE 7 A. International Conventions and Federal Statutes Obligate the United States to Hold Perpetrators Legally Accountable for Gross Violations of Human Rights 8 B. The Doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction Confirms the United States' Interest In and Authority to Adjudicate this Case 14 C. Contemporary International Law Principles Establish the United States' Interest in Redressing the Wrongs Alleged 16 II. THIS COURT IS UNIQUELY SITUATED TO VINDICATE THE UNITED STATES' INTEREST 19 A. Providing a Forum to Victims of Human Rights Abuses Is Consistent with the Traditional Role of the Federal Courts 20 B. This Court Is Uniquely Situated to Redress the Human Rights Violations Alleged Here 21 Conclusion 22
Human Rights Watch is a non-partisan, non-governmental human rights organization headquartered in New York. It is the largest international human rights organization based in the United States, comprising five regional divisions: Africa Watch, Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Helsinki Watch and Middle East Watch.
Human Rights Watch investigates, documents and publicizes systematic violations of human rights throughout the world, including torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war. It has conducted fact-finding investigations in scores of countries. In connection with this work, Human Rights Watch has long supported the right of victims of human rights violations to seek compensation and the obligation of courts to hold perpetrators accountable. See, e.g., Aryeh Neier, Accountability for Past Human Rights Abuses: An Overview of the Issue and Human Rights Policy, Human Rights Watch, No. 4 (Dec. 1989) (setting forth Human Rights Watch policy on accountability). The reports it issues have received significant attention from the United States Department of State, Congress, the, United Nations, international lending institutions and the local, regional and international press. By exposing and calling attention to human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch seeks to bring international public opinion to bear on offending governments and thus to encourage an end to abusive practices.2
Helsinki Watch was established in 1979 and is the oldest and largest division of Human Rights Watch. Helsinki Watch monitors and reports on human rights conditions in Europe, including Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Turkey. Since its inception, Helsinki Watch has worked extensively on conditions in the former Yugoslavia. Helsinki Watch has at least two full-time researchers in the region at all times.
Human Rights Watch, through its division Helsinki Watch, has a longstanding interest in promoting the rule of law in the former Yugoslavia and in enhancing the ability of war victims to seek redress. Over the past two years, representatives of Helsinki Watch have conducted hundreds of interviews with survivors and witnesses to war crimes and other human rights abuses. To date, Helsinki Watch has published over 800 pages of such testimony and analysis. I & II HELSINKI WATCH, WAR CRIMES IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA (1992-1993). Testimony collected by Helsinki Watch implicates defendant Karadzic in acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, as do the allegations of the Complaint in this action. See I id., at 6. Most recently, in July 1993. Helsinki Watch released a document presenting eight war crimes cases against 29 potential defendants, linking each defendant to specific crimes and summarizing evidence collected to date. Helsinki Watch, Prosecute Now! Helsinki Watch Releases Eight Cases for War Crimes
Tribunal on Former Yugoslavia, News From Helsinki Watch, Vol. 5, Issue 12 (August 1, 1993).
The Women's Rights Project of Human Rights Watch has also assisted in gathering testimonial evidence of rape and other crimes against women committed in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Founded by Human Rights Watch in 1990, the Women's Rights Project monitors and reports on violence against women and gender discrimination around the world. It has documented the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war in the former Yugoslavia as well as in other conflict situations. See, e.g., HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, UNTOLD TERROR: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN PERU'S ARMED CONFLICT (1992).
Human Rights Watch, through Helsinki Watch, has provided its findings to the Commission of Experts appointed by the United Nations Secrerary General to investigate war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. In addition, representatives of Helsinki Watch have provided testimony and reports on the Balkans to various bodies of the United Nations, the United States State Department, Congress and other international and domestic organizations.
A cornerstone of Human Rights Watch's mandate is a commitment to ensuring that those responsible for gross violations of human rights are held criminally and civilly accountable for their crimes. To that end, Human Rights Watch has submitted amicus curiae briefs to numerous international and U.S. courts,4 including courts in this District. For example, through its Americas Watch division,Human Rights Watch was counsel for the petitioners in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, a case in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held the government of Honduras responsible for the disappearance of three persons and ordered it to pay compensation to the victims' survivors. Judgment of July 29, 1988,Inter-Am. C.H.R. 35, OAS/ser. L/V/III 19, doe. 13, app. VI (1988).
Human Rights Watch believes that its extensive knowledge of human rights practices in the former Yugoslavia and of international standards of accountability will assist this Court in determining whether the United States has an interest in redressing the atrocities alleged here and whether this Court provides an appropriate forum for war victims' civil claims.
In this amicus brief, Human Rights Watch responds to defendant Karadzic's suggestion that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the acts of genocide, summary execution, torture, mass rape and forced pregnancy alleged in the Complaint "are unconnected with New York or the United States." Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Before Answer at 8. Human Rights Watch also responds to Karadzic's intimation that the United States possesses no interest of substance in the atrocities at issue in this case. ld. at 9 (attempting to distinguish
Burnham v. Supenor Ct. of Cal., 495 U.S. 604 (1990), on the ground that substantial state interests, such as the "welfare of . . . children," were implicated there but not here)
Karadzic's contention that the United States has no interest in or connection with horrific violations of human rights in Bosnia is meritless. As Judge Kaufman has urged, "[t]he enforcement of fundamental norms by federal courts is an expression of this nation's commitment to human dignity throughout the world." for International Torture, N.Y. Times. Nov. 9, Irving R. Kaufman, A Legal Remedy for International Torture, N.Y. Times Nov. 1980, ' 6 (Magazine), at 44, 52. The acts of summary execution, torture and mass rape alleged in the Complaint violate the most fundamental principles of international law and are of compelling interest to all states. Accordingly, international law grants the courts of the United States and all other nations the right to provide redress for victims of these egregious human rights abuses.
This Court alone has both personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the ability fairly to adjudicate the case against him. Under well established principles of both international and United States law, the Court has not only the right, but also the duty to adjudicate plaintiffs' claims and if a verdict is returned against him, to hold defendant Karadzic accountable for the human rights and humanitarian law abuses alleged.
Karadzic's suggestion that the United States has neither a material connection with nor a substantial state interest in the atrocities he allegedly ordered, planned, abetted or condoned finds no support in the sources of law governing this action.
First, the United States' interest in violations of fundamental human rights such as those alleged here is demonstrated by its adherence to human rights conventions that obligate it to provide redress for such violations. Congress's enactment of federal causes of action for victims of the most serious human rights abuses confirms the obligation of the United States courts to adjudicate the conduct at issue here.
Second, the connection between these unspeakable offenses and the United States is reflected in the international law principle of universal jurisdiction over the offenses of genocide, war crimes and torture, all of which are alleged here.
Finally, the vital interest of the United States in the acts alleged here is established by universally recognized principles of contemporary international law. Karadzic's intimation that horrific human rights violations within the borders of Bosnia-Hercegovina are no other state's business is based on a notion of state sovereignty that has been rejected without exception by contemporary international norms.
Each of the international treaties and rules on which plaintiffs' claims are grounded shares a common elemen: with the others: each provides the United Stares not only with a compelling interest in the horrific acts allegedly committed at defendant Karadzic's direction, but also with the obligation to hold the perpetrators legally accountable for such acts.
Legal accountability is at the core of virtually every incernational human rights initiative to which the United States is a party -- including those invoked by plaintiffs here. The language of the Genocide Convention, for example, is mandatory: the Convention establishes that the acts it enumerates "shall be punished." Also, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which define willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment in international conflicts as Agrave breaches,@ obligate each State party "to search for persons alleged to have committed . . . grave breaches and . . . bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."
Legal accountability under these sources of international law encompasses both criminal and civil accountability. For example, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 7, 23 I.L.M. 1027, 1029 (advice and consent accorded by Senate on Oct. 27' 1990) (hereinafter "Torture Convention"), provides that each state party "shall . . . if it does not extradite [the defendant], submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." (Emphasis added.) Article 14(1) of the Torture Convention also provides that "[e]ach State shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation." (Emphasis added.) There is no distinction between criminal and civil remedies in such human rights conventions.9
In another context, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, art. 2(3)(a), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (enterd into force for United States on June 8, 1992) (the "ICCPR"), requires state parties to provide an "effective remedy" to persons whose rights have been violated. AS the Inter-American Court on Human Rights of the Organization of American States made clear in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, under international law every violation of an international obligation that results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am. C.H.R. 35, OAS/ser. L/V/III 19, doe. 13, app. VI (1988) & 174.
These incernational conventions and interpretations, considered together, conclusively demonstrate the United States' obligation under modern public international law to punish the most serious violations of human rights and to provide reparations for victims.
United States courts recognize their obligation to provide civil redress to victims of human rights abuses committed by officials of foreign nations against their fellow compatriots. In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rts. Litia., 978 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2960 (1993); Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 672 F. Supp. 1531 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Just last week, a federal district court awarded compensatory and punitive damages co victims of torture that the defendant, a former Ethiopian official, had "directed, ordered, aided, abetted or participated in, and for acts committed by forces under his command which he authorized." Abebe-Jiri v. Negewo, No. 1:90 (11) CV-2010-GET, slip op. at 6-7 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 20, 1993) (findings and conclusions after bench trial).
Similarly, in Filartiga, the Second Circuit reversed a district court decision denying jurisdiction over the claims of a Paraguayan national whose son had been tortured to death by a Paraguayan official, holding that the torture victim could assert a cause of action under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 1350. The Second Circuit recognized that Congress's provision of a federal forum for foreign victims of torture served to fulfill the United States' international obligations, marking "a small but important step in the fulfullment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence." 630 F.2d at 890.
Congress recently underscored the United States' obligation to hold accountable those who violate fundamental human rights and provide redress to their victims by enacting the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 73 (1992) (hereinafter "TVPA"). The TVPA establishes a civil cause of action against any individual who commits torture or extrajudicial killing under "apparent authority . . . of any foreign nation." TVPA ' 2(a). The TVPA applies fully to the claims asserted here, since rape is a method of torture. See, e.g., Deborah Blatt, Recognizing Rage as a Method of Torture, 11 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 821 (1992); 2 HELSINKI WATCH, WAR CRIMES IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA 2023 (1993). (12)
In enacting the TVPA, Congress codified the holding of Filartiga -- that federal courts should provide a forum for claims against foreign officials for torture committed abroad. H.R. Rep. No. 367, 102d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, at 86 (1991) ("House Report"). The legislative history of the TVPA notes that by providing a federal cause of action to victims of torture and summary execution, Congress satisfied the United States' obligation under the Torture Convention "to adopt measures to ensure that torturers are held legally accountable for their acts." Id. pt. 1, at 85.
As the World Conference on Human Rights declared in June 1993:
all persons who perpetrate or authorize criminal acts associated with ethniccleansing, are individually responsible and accountable for all such human rights violations, and . . . the international community should exert every effort to bring those legally responsible for such violations to justice.
REPORT OF THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE; ADDENDUM; FINAL OUTCOME OF THE WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/DC/1/Add.l, part III, II(A)(5) (June 24, 1993). The principle of accountability, embodied in international human rights instruments and federal statutes, obligates this Court to exercise its jurisdiction over this case.13
In addition to torture and extrajudicial execution, the Complaint before this Court contains allegations of genocide and war crimes, for which international law provides universal jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, all states as a matter of customary international law are authorized to hold persons who commit such acts accountable in their courts. See 1 RESTATEMENT 404 cmt. a at 254. See generally, 2 M. CHERIF BASSIOUNI, Characteristics of International Law Conventions in INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW ' 1-9 at 31 (1986). United States courts have long recognized the pariciple of universal jurisdiction. E.g., United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Demjanjuk v. Petrovskv, 776 F.2d 571, 582 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016 (1986).
Neither the nationality of the perpetrator or the victims nor the location of the crime constrains jurisdiction over these offenses, since the perpetrators of such atrocities are enemies of all mankind. Demjaniuk, 776 F.2d at 581. Moreover, it is, well established thar the concept of universal violations is not limited to criminal jurisdiction, but extends to the enforcement of civil law. 2 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE LAW OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES ' 404 cmt. b at 255(1986).14
In addition to those offenses for which universal jurisdiction is recognized as a principle of customary international law, universal jurisdiction may also be prescribed by treaty. For example, the Torture Convention, invoked by plaintiffs here, provides that a state shall extradite the person or assert jurisdiction whenever "the alleged offender is present in any territory under [a State's] jurisdiction." Torture Convention, art. 5(2), 23 I.L.M. at 1028.
The United States has signed the Torture Convention and is therefore bound not to take any action that undermines the intent of the treaty. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 18, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980). And as the Second Circuit recognized in Filartiga, the legislation necessary to try torturers civilly in the U.S. courts has existed since 1789. 630 F.2d at 878, 890 (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 1350). Furthermore, in enacting the TVPA, Congress recognized the principle of universal jurisdiction over civil actions against torturers, expressly noting that "current travel" by an individual to the United States by itself would provide sufficient contacts for personal jurisdiction. See S. Rep. No. 249, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 7 (1991) (to accompany S.313, as amended).
Under international law, universal jurisdiction is authorized only for the most atrocious offenses. Aside from genocide and war crimes, only piracy, the slave trade, attacks on or hijac}cing of aircraft and certain acts of terrorism are subject to universal jurisdiction as a matter of customary international law. See(15)1 RESTATEMENT ' 404. The acts for which universal jurisdiction is prescribed by treaty are equally egregious and small in number. Id., reporter's note 1. Tragically, it is the conduct that international law has deFmed as most heinous -- genocide, torture, war crimes -- that is at issue here.
Contrary to defendant Karadzic's contention, universally accepted principles of international law establish that the United States and its courts have a vital interest in the genocide, torture, mass rape and other inhumane acts that the Complaint alleges were committed under defendant's control and direction. Karadzic's position is based on a nineteenth-century notion of absolute state sovereignty -- a notion that has been roundly rejected by contemporary international law.
Under international law of the 1800s, individuals had no independent rights. At best, they "benefited indirectly from the rule that a state could consider ,any injury to its citizen as an injury to itself and therefore could attempt to obtain reparation for it." Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States, 32 Am. U. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1982). By the same token, the principle of absolute sovereignty placed the treatment of citizens by their own states within the exclusive domain of the state. Id. (traditional international law "had little to say about mistreatment of persons by their own government").
By contrast, modern international law makes a state's mistreatment of its nationals an express concern of all states. Filartiza, 630 F.2d at 884 (overruling dictum in earlier decision "to the effect that 'violations of international law do not occur when the aggrieved parties are nationals of the acting state="; dictum was "clearly out of tune with the current usage and practice of international law"); Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 461 490 (1989). No longer viewed as mere chattels of their states, individuals possess fundamental rights under international law that all states are obliged to respect. 1 RESTATEMENT ' 701.
A state's obligation to respect fundamental human rights is owed not only to the individual, but also to all other states. 2 RESTATEMENT ' 702 cmt. o. By deeming violations of an individual's basic human rights an injury to all states, con- temporary international law modifies the traditional rule that an injury to a state's citizen is an injury only to the state itself. See Richard B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts, 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 367, 370 (1985) (international human rights norms are "an outgrowth of . . . traditional international law .... [which] required all states to adhere to an 'international minimum standard' of procedural and substantive justice in their treatment of aliens").17
The interest ot each state in the creatment of nationals of other states is particularly acute when, as is the case here, the violations are of ms cogens norms -the most fundamental of all international law proscriptions. Every nation has a "fundamental entitlement" that no other nation derogate from these peremptory norms. D'Amato, The Concept of Human Rights in Intemational Law, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1110, 1128 (1982); see 2 RESTATEMENT ' 701 reporter's note 3.
The brutal acts of genocide, summary execution and torture that Karadzic allegedly directed, authorized or condoned are among the clearest violations of us cogens norms. See, E.g., STAFF OF SENATE COMM. ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 102D CONG., 2D SESS., THE ETHNTC CLEANSING OF BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA 12-13 (Comm. Print 1992) ("[eithnic cleansing is itself illegal under international law .... there is a prima facie case that the Bosnian Serb authorities have committed crimes against humanity as well as war crimes"); 2 RESTATEMENT ' 702 cmt. n (proscriptions against genocide, murder or causing the disappearance of individuals and torture are jus cogens); see Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881-84 (official torture prohibited by "the law of nations").
Because of their legal interest in compliance with us co~ens norms, all states have a right and a duty to vindicate violations of them. 2 RESTATEMENT ' 701 cmt. c ("every state can pursue remedies against any other state that commits a violation of the rights under customary law of persons subject to its jurisdiction"). Thus, contemporary international law establishes that the United States has a compelling interest in the bloody violations of fundamental human rights that defendant Karadzic allegedly planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted.
As demonstrated above, contrary to defendant Karadzic's suggeshon, the United States holds an important interest in redressing the savage violations of human rights alleged here. This Court, moreover, is an appropriate forum for vindicating the United States' interests. First, providing redress for victims of human(19)rights violations is in accord with well established precedent and consistent with the federal courts' traditional role in remedying deprivations of civil liberties. Second, this Court is uniquely situated to administer justice on the facts of this case.
"Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced." The Nuremberg Trial, 6 F.R.D. 69, 110 (1946). Consistent with their traditional role in redressing deprivations of civil liberiies, the federal courts have repeatedly taken up the task of satisfying the United States' international obligation to hold violators of fundamental human rights accountable for their bloody acts. See, E.g., In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rts. Litig., supra; Filartica, supra; Forti, supra.
Holding perpetrators of universally condemned international human rights abuses civilly liable falls squarely within the traditional role of the judiciary. E.g., Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 885 ("[i]t is not extraordinary for a court to adjudicate a tort claim arising outside of its territorial jurisdiction"). The central function of federal courts in vindicating international human rights violations mirrors their traditional role in enforcing individual rights under domestic law. E.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Bell v Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).
See generally Lea Brilmayer, International Law in American Courts: A Modest Proposal, lOO Yale L.J. 2277, 2307-08 (1991); accord Kaufman at 52 ("[t]he obligation of our courts to identify egregious violations of international law is in many ways analogous to the courts' traditional role in redressing deprivations of civil liberties that occur at home"). The claims advanced by plaintiffs here are well within the type of claims traditionally adjudicated by the federal courts.
This Court's obligation to adjudicate these claims is made even more pressing by the fact that it is the only court that possesses both personal jurisdiction and the capacity to offer plaintiffs a fair hearing of their claims. No other court outside of the former Yugoslavia has obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Domestic courts in the former Yugoslavia have neither the power nor the will to provide the plaintiffs a fair hearing. And the statute adopted by the United Nations Security Council for a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia does not guarantee compensation of victims of the acts of genocide, torture, summary execution, forced pregnancy and mass rape alleged here. That statute also forbids trials in absentia. Given the obstacles to bringing the accused to trial, few victims may ever have their day in court.
Congress has expressly acknowledged the importance of federal court jurisdiction in circumstances such as these:
Judicial protections against flagrant human rights violations are often least effective in those countries where such abuses are most prevalent. A state that practices torture and summary execution is not one that adheres to the rule of law. The general collapse of democratic institutions characteristic of countries scourged by massive violations of fundamental rights rarely leaves the judiciary intact.
House Report, pt. 1, at 85. Where, as here, federal courts provide the only tribunal in which the victims of human nghts abuses can seer; justice, international and United States law mandate that the federal courts' jurisdiction be exercised. E.g., id.
Federal litigation will not put an end to the torment and agony caused by gross human rights abuses such as those suffered by the plaintiffs. However, by asserting jurisdiction over defendant Karadzic, this Court will send a powerful message to current and future offenders in the former Yugoslavia that United States federal courts will not abandon their traditional role as protectors of individual rights.(22) Most important, this Court is in a unique posiiion to provide victims of the brutal violations of fundamental human rights that Karadzic allegedly oversaw with redress for the wrongs they have suffered.
For the foregoing reasons, amicus curiae Human Rights Watch respectfully submits that this Court should deny defendant Karadzic's motion to dismiss and proceed to a trial on the merits of plaintiffs' claims of genocide, summary execution, torture, mass rape and forced pregnancy.
Dated: New York, New York
August 25, 1993
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON
Donald Francis Donovan
Charles E. Joseph
Natalie R. Williams
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
(Local Rule 1: DD-2925)
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
485 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Human Rights Watch
1.Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, adopted Dec. 9,1948, art. IV, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 (entered into force for United States on Feb.23, 1989) (persons "committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals") (emphasis added), implemented by Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, 18 U.S.C. ' 1091.
2.See Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded andn Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12, 1949, art. 50, 6 U.S.T. 3114, 3146, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, 62; Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, art. 51, 6 U.S.T. 3217, 3250, 75 U.N.T.S. 85, 116;Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,Aug. 12, 1949, art. 130, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 3420, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, 238; Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 3618, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 388.
3.International instruments relating to terrorism similarly include a duty to prosecute. See Alice H. Henkin, Conference Report, in STATE CRIMES: PUNISHMENT OR PARDON 1, 4 (The Aspen Institute 1988).
4.For other references to the right to an "effective remedy," see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted Dec. 10, 1948, G.A. res. 217A(III),art. 8, U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art. 6, 5 I.L.M. 352 (entered into force on Jan. 4, 1969) which provides for the right to seek "just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered." Even more specific are the provisions of Article 9(5) of the ICCPR and Article 5(5) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental; Freedoms, adopted Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, which refer to the"enforceable right to compensation."
5.For a general statement on civil accountability, see also Jose Zalaquett, Confronting Human Rights Violations Committed bv Former Governments:Principles Applicable and Political Constraints, in STATE CRIMES:PUNISHMENT OR PARDON 23, 36 (The Aspen Institute 1988) ("[E]very possible effort should be made to compensate victims of human rights violations and their families, to assist them in the treatment of physical and psychological consequences and to restore them to the enjoyment of other rights and benefits they were illegally deprived of .... Knowledge of the truth is also a measure of reparation.").
6.See, e.g., THEO VAN BOVEN, SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR, STUDY CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION, COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION FOR VICTIMS OF GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8 (July 2, 1993) (final report); Diane Orentlicher, Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime, 100 Yale L. J. 2537 (1991); Naomi Rohtarriaza, State Responsibility to Investigate and Prosecute Grave Human Right; Violations in International Law, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 451 (1990); Nigel S. Rodley, The International Legal Consequences of Torture. Extra-Legal Execution and Disappearance, in NEW DIRECTIONS IN HUMAN RIGHTS (Ellen Lutz et al.,eds., 1989).
7.Genocide -- an act in which defendant Karadzic has repeatedly been implicated in testimony gathered by Helsinki Watch -- has appropriately been characterized as the most heinous crime of all. See 1 HELSKINKI WATCH, WAR CRIMES IN BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA 6, 9, 36, 163, 166 (1993). See generally FRANK CHALK AND KURT JONASSOHN, THE HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY OF GENOCIDE: ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDES 5-43 (1990) (summarizing history of genocide and origins of genocide as a concept). The term genocide was developed during World War II to describe Hitler's attacks against Jews and other groups of "undesirables." RAPHAEE LEMKIN, AXIS RULE IN OCCUPED EUROPE (1944). On December 9, 1948, responding to the atrocities of the Nazis, the United Nations adopted a definition of genocide that fully encompasses the atrocities allegedly planned, directed or condoned by Karadzic. Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, Jan. 12, 1971, art. 2, 78 U.N.T.S. 277 (entered into force for United States on Feb. 23, 1987), implemented by Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, 18 U.S.C. ' 1091.
8.See Statute of the International Tribunal, in Security Council Resolution 827 of May 25, 1993 ("International Tribunal Statute") (incorporating The Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Security Council Resolution 808 of February 22, 1993).
9. See International Tribunal Statute, art. 21; see generally Helsinki Watch,Procedural and Evidentiary Issues for the Yugoslav War Crimes Tribunal,News From Helsinki Watch, at 4-5, Vol. 5 Issue 15 (August 1993) (summarizing rights of accused).