Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization which appeared as amicus curiae in this case in the District Court, respectfully moves this Court, with the consent of all parties, for leave to file the accompanying brief, amicus curiae, to address the following issue of paramount importance to protecting human rights:
Do non-enemy aliens, in their own countries, have substantive due process rights, under the Fifth Amendment, not to be subject to gross violations of internationally recognized human rights at the hands of United States agents?
Counsel for all parties have consented to the filing of this brief, and have authorized counsel for Human Rights Watch to so advise the Court.
Human Rights Watch is a non-partisan, non-governmental human rights organization based in New York. It is the largest international human rights organization based in the United States.
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 rights of victims of human rights violations to seek compensation, and the obligation of courts to hold perpetrators accountable.
Reports issued by Human Rights Watch have received significant attention from the United States Department of State, Congress, the United Nations, international financial 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 upon offending governments and thus to encourage an end to abusive practices.
Human Rights Watch has submitted amicus curiae briefs in numerous United States courts, including this Court, the United States Supreme Court, and several United States District Courts. Human Rights Watch appeared as amicus curiae in this case in the District Court. The District Courts decision granting Human Rights Watch's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief stated:
This action presents difficult questions of international law and the memorandum of law filed by Human Rights Watch, limited as it is to the extraterritorial application of the Due Process Clause, is welcome.
(Order, August 9, 1994)
Human Rights Watch has played a prominent role in human rights issues in Mexico, as its publications illustrate. In March 1994, Human Rights Watch issued a report on "The New Year's Rebellion: Violation of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law During the Armed Revolt in Chiapas, Mexico." In August 1994, Human Rights Watch published "Mexico at the Crossroads: Political Rights ~ the 1994 Presidential and Congressional Elections." In December 1994, Human Rights Watch published, "Waiting for Justice in Chiapas." In June 1995, Human Rights Watch published, "Army Officer Held 'Responsible' for Chiapas Massacre."
Human Rights Watch's credibility and effectiveness in each region of the world depends upon making clear that it applies the same human rights standards in evaluating the conduct of all nations. As a worldwide organization based in the United States, Human Rights Watch has a special duty to step forward when, as in this case, grave allegations of human rights abuses are made against persons acting on behalf of the United States.
WHEREFORE, Human Rights Watch respectfully requests that its motion for leave to file the accompanying brief, amicus curiae, be granted.
Dated: December 22, 1995
KENNETH ROTH JUAN MENDEZ HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 485 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 972-8400 RICHARD M. ZUCKERMAN 650 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10019 (212) 265-1200 PETER GOLDBERGER 50 Rittenhouse Place Ardmore, Pennsylvania 19003-2276 (610) 649-8200 Attorneys for Human Rights Watch, as Amicus Curiae.
I hereby certify that I served two copies of the foregoing MOTION, ON CONSENT, OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF, AS AMICUS CURIAE on each of the following counsel on December 22, 1995, by Federal Express, for delivery on December 26,1995:
Paul Hoffman, Esq. Attorney for
ACLU Foundation of Appellee Alvarez-Machain
Southern California
1616 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90026-5752
Barbara L. Herwig, Esq. Attorneys for the
Robert M. Loeb, Esq. United States of America
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 3343
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Charles S. Leeper, Esq. Attorneys for Appellant
Karl N. Metzner, Esq. Francisco Sosa
Spriggs & Hollingsworth
1350 I Street, N.W. Ninth Floor
Washington. D.C. 20005
Gary S. Lincenberg, Esq. Attorneys for Appellant
Joan M. Steinmann, Esq. Garate-Bustamante
Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Matz
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Michael L. Martinez, Esq. Attorneys for Appellants
Holland & Knight Berellez, Waters, Gruden & Lawn
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20037
All parties have been served. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: December 22, 1995
Richard M. Zuckerman