ommendation that this reservation be deleted as unnecessary and potentially misleading. Any obligation assumed by the United States under Article 3 of this Convention would not prevent the performance of any inconsistent terms of a bilateral extradition treaty between the United States and a State not signatory to this Convention.

Definition of "competent authorities" under Article 3.—I agree with the later State Department view that this declaration proposed by the transmittal should be deleted. It is not necessary to include this delineation of intra-governmental authority in the formal instrument of ratification. Moreover, in light of the judicial inquiry authorized by Article 3(a) of the Supplementary Extradition Treaty with the United Kingdom, the Department of State would not be the only competent authority to decide issues raised by Article 3 of this Convention in extradition cases.

Article 5: Deposit of instrument of ratification.—This declaration, proposed in the transmittal, is essentially the same as a declaration adopted by the Senate with respect to the Genocide Convention. It is appropriate to include it as well in this Convention as a declaration.

Article 7: Prosecution of alien in the United States only if extradition to state where offense was committed is not available.-This declaration, proposed in the transmittal, should be retained as a reservation, with the addition of the following words at the end, “as determined solely by the United States," so that it would provide: The United States declares that it will submit a case involving alleged torture committed by an alien outside the United States to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Convention, only if extradition of the offender to the State where the offense was committed is not an adequate alternative as determined solely by the United States.

Right to compensation in torture cases.—I suggest the following reservation: That the obligation of the United States to provide a right to compensation under Article 14 is limited to cases involving conduct under color of law in which, apart from the Convention, a right to compensation is provided by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

This reservation is necessary to prevent Article 14 from being interpreted to require a general right of compensation from federal officers comparable to the right existing against state officers under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Article 16: Obligation of the United States limited to constitutional violations.— See above under Article 2. The reservation proposed above under Article 2 would render unnecessary the comparable understanding with respect to Article 16 proposed in the transmittal, which was proposed as a reservation by the Department of State.

Articles 20 and 21: Competence of the Committee on Torture.-For the reasons stated at p. 17 of the transmittal, I suggest that the language proposed by the transmittal be retained as a reservation. The State Department's proposed declaration on this subject is imprudent in its recognition of the competence of the Committee on Torture.

Article 30.—I agree with the reservation proposed by the transmittal and the Department of State but would suggest the following additional separate reservation: "That with reference to Article 30 of this Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.'

This reservation is essentially the same as a reservation adopted by the Senate to the Genocide Convention.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, indeed, Professor a Rice. I would ask unanimous consent to insert a statement from a group of citizens groups into the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

We strongly endorse the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture) and urge the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to promptly recommend Senate advice and consent to ratification. Torture is a direct violation of the human rights our organizations strive to protect and promote. There are no circumstances in which torture can be justified, nor can there be any legitimate defense offered for it. The civilized world developed this Convention not only to express its revulsion at the practice, but also as a tool with which to uncover, prosecute, and punish torture. The Convention against Torture was adopted unanimously by the United National General Assembly in 1984, and entered into force in 1987. The United States par

ticipated actively in drafting the Convention and signed it on April 18, 1988. The Convention was then transmitted by President Reagan for advice and consent to ratification. The United States is the only member of the U.N. Security Council which has not ratified the Convention.

The Treaty contains a number of provisions which would make it more difficult for states to practice torture and for individuals to escape punishment for the crime of torture. The impact of these provisions would also prevent torturers from claiming that their acts did not constitute torture. The Convention further requires measures to prevent torture and punish violators when torture takes place. The force of these and other provisions should not be compromised or weakened by reservations, declarations, or understandings.

U.S. ratification of the Convention Against Torture would send an important signal to the world about U.S. concern for human rights and its determination to combat torture with every available tool. It also allows the United States to join with other countries in pursuing and prosecuting torturers. Moreover, we believe that United States ability to pursue a persuasive, constructive, and credible human rights policy will suffer until the United States takes formal steps to accept those standards of international conduct by which it evaluates other States. We therefore urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to support the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and work towards its immediate ratification.

Supporters for the U.N. Convention Against Torture: American Jewish Committee; Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith; The Armenian Assembly of America; National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the USA; Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; B'nai B'rith Women; B'nai B'rith International Council; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute; Freedom House; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Indochina Resource Action Council; International Human Rights Law Group; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; National Council of Churches; National Council of Jewish Women; Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; and the United States Catholic Conference.

The CHAIRMAN. I would now turn to Mr. Weissbrodt.

STATEMENT OF DAVID WEISSBRODT, BRIGGS & MORGAN PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, ON BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE, THE MINNESOTA LAWYERS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, MINNEAPOLIS, MI

Mr. WEISSBRODT. Thank you, Chairman Pell, for the invitation to speak before your committee.

I am testifying today as a representative of the Center for Victims of Torture and the Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee. Both are headquartered in Minneapolis.

Since we have such a short time, I hope that I can submit for the record an analysis of the Treaty Against Torture and the reservations, understandings, and declarations.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be printed in full.

Mr. WEISSBRODT. The Center for Victims of Torture, the Minnesota Lawyers Committee, and our clients urge you to give the advice and consent of the Senate to the Treaty Against Torture as soon as possible.

Minnesota may seem an unlikely place to which torture victims would flee. But there are about 6,000 victims of torture from all over the world in Minnesota alone, and there are estimated to be 100,000 such victims who have found refuge in the United States. They come from the two-thirds of the world's countries where torture is practiced.

Torture has no ideology. It is practiced by governments of both the right and the left, as confirmed by the clients who seek the help of the center.

Unfortunately, torturers learn from each other. Repressive governments share torture techniques and integrate advances in science to accentuate pain and psychological damage.

I have submitted to the committee staff a manual on torture distributed to mercenaries. This manual confirms what we have concluded from our clients, that the goal of torture is to cause intense physical pain, humiliation, and long-term psychological damage on individuals.

But the ultimate objective of torture is to terrorize the entire community and to render them politically inactive.

The center has helped people who have been subjected to electroshocks, being hanged by hands and feet, cigarette burns and other atrocities. Unless treated, these individuals will suffer long-term psychological damage, and that impact will include their families, friends, and communities.

It is frustrating for us, who have to try to heal the wounds of those who have suffered from torture, not to have some way to stem the flow of those who come 'to seek our help. That is why it is so urgent to ratify this treaty soon, rather than after 35 or 40 years.

Stopping torture should be a primary objective of the United States foreign policy and the policies of all countries.

The Treaty Against Torture will confirm the obligation of the United States and other countries to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

The treaty rejects the idea that in some circumstances, torture might be acceptable.

The treaty will expose, and thus will help, prevent torture. It will provide the basis for investigating, adjudicating, criticizing, and ultimately preventing torture.

The treaty cannot immediately erase torture from the world. But it will provide a useful tool to stop this horrendous practice.

Ratification will demonstrate the commitment of the United States to ending this ongoing tragedy.

Now, the United States has nothing to fear from the ratification of this treaty against torture. The United States does have a good record in human rights.

The limitations on the treaty proposed by the administration, however, and by some of the witnesses here, particularly as to articles 3 and 16, as well as to the self-executing nature of the treaty, give the unfortunate impression that some attorneys, and particularly government attorneys, are trying to minimize the protection this treaty will provide.

None of the 50 governments which have ratified have interposed anywhere close to this number of limitations.

In regard to article 16, for example, we need to prevent not only torture, but cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Sophisticated interrogators, for example, in Northern Ireland, have used a group of techniques, such as forcing individuals to stand for long periods, "hooding," incessant noise, sleep deprivation, and refusing food and drink. This combination of techniques

was found by the European Court of Human Rights not to constitute torture but only inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The administration's reservation to article 16 will make it more difficult for the United States to complain about such ill treatment. Further, the reservation would diminish the treaty's application to the ill-treatment of children and of mental patients. Those vulnerable people should not be deprived of the treaty's protection.

In conclusion, we urge you to give your advice and consent to the treaty against torture promptly with as few limitations as possible. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weissbrodt and addenda follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID WEISSBRODT

Thank you, Chairman Pell, for the invitation to speak before your committee. I'm a law professor at the University of Minnesota.1 I am testifying today as a representative of the Center for Victims of Torture and the Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee. Both are headquarterd in Minneapolis.

Because I have only a few minutes to talk with you, I would ask the committee's permission to submit for the hearing record an analysis of the Treaty against Torture and the Administration's proposed reservations, understandings, and declarations.

The Center for Victims of Torture, the Minnesota Lawyers Committee, and our clients urge you to give your advice and consent for the ratification of the Treaty against Torture. Minnesota may seem an unlikely place to which torture victims would flee. Nonetheless, there are about 6 thousand victims of torture from all over the world who live in Minnesota alone. There are estimated to be over 100,000 victims of torture who have found refuge in the U.S. They come from the two-thirds of the world's countries which practice or condone torture. Torture has no ideology; it is practiced by governments of both the right and the left, as confirmed by the clients who seek help at the Center.

Unfortunately, torturers learn from each other. Repressive governments share torture techniques and integrate advances in science to accentuate pain and psychological damage. I have submitted to the Committee staff a manual on torture distributed to mercenaries. This manual confirms what we had concluded from our clients: that the goal of torture is to cause intense physical pain, humiliation, and long-term psychological damage on individuals. But the ultimate objective of torture is to terrorize the entire community and render it politically inactive. The Center has helped people who have been subjected to electro-shocks, cigarette burns to the body, hanging by hands and feet, and other atrocities. Unless treated, torture has a life-long impact on the victims, their families, friends, and communities. It is frustrating for us who try to heal the wounds of torture to believe that we have no recourse to stem the flow of victims who come to us for help.

Stopping torture should be a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy and the policies of all governments. The Treaty against Torture will confirm the obligation of the United States to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The treaty rejects the idea that in extreme circumstances torture may be necessary. The treaty is a law; it must be enforced to be effective. The treaty will expose and thus help prevent torture. It will provide a basis for investigating, adjudicating, criticizing, and ultimately preventing cases of torture. The treaty cannot immediately erase torture from the earth. But it will provide a useful tool to stop the horrors people are suffering. Ratification will demonstrate that the United States is committed to ending this ongoing tragedy.

The United States has nothing to fear from ratifying the Treaty against Torture. The U.S. generally has a good human rights record. The limitations on the treaty proposed by the administration, however, particularly as to Articles 3 and 16 as well as the treaty's self-executing application-give the unfortunate impression that at least some of the government attorneys are trying to minimize the protection this treaty will provide. None of the 50 governments, which have ratified the Treaty against Torture, have interposed so many limitations. In regard to Article 16, for

1 While I the Briggs & Morgan Professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law, I am not speaking today for the University of Minnesota or the Briggs & Morgan law firm.

I get angry and sad when I get a few glimpses of what is going on in the world now."

The center receives an annual grant from the Danish government of $800,000, which covers half of the operating costs. The balance is made up by private contributions. Patients are not charged, but only those who have been granted the status of political refugees by Denmark are eligible for treatment. There is a waiting list of almost 150.

The center's medical team has taught its techniques around the world, sometimes secretly to health professionals in countries where torture is commonplace. Staff members have at times risked their lives to pass on their special knowledge.

Therapists at the center do not use the standard hospital equipment, because they could further traumatize patients who were frequently bound, wired, and electrically shocked. Instead, they rely on massage to relieve pain and to help patients. "Some patients refuse, at first, to take off their clothes," says Inge Bloch, a physiotherapist. "They know that stripping has been a prelude to pain. Others panic if they are touched suddenly or approached from behind."

Vesti carefully encourages his patients to relive the terror of their torture and vent emotions that they have had to bottle up. He encourages them to display fury at the humiliation of being tortured, to help expunge deep-seated feelings of guilt at having survived when others died.

He and his colleagues have come to understand the methodology of the torturers. "Contrary to a popular idea, torture is not used only to extract information," says Vesti. "It is also designed to break strong personalities. Ultimately, it is used to intimidate whole societies. The sight of what an experienced torturer can achieve can cow the strongest man or woman.'

The center's staff believes that psychological torture is on the increase, because attacking the mind leaves no clear-cut evidence, unlike blows to the body. But after an average stay of 12 months, about 90 percent of the center's patients do return to normal lives-a tribute both to the mind's power to adapt and to the work of the center's staff.

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize for not being able to stay on. I will be submitting some questions in writing. I would ask that the record be kept open for at least a week so that any of my colleagues who have questions can present them, and that will be part of the written record.

I would now turn the gavel over to Senator Helms.

Senator HELMS [presiding]. I am going to submit questions to each of you myself. conclude in just a moment. This means that we will conclude in just a moment.

But I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Forte and Professor Rice.

If the reservations or understandings that both of you have proposed are fully adopted, would you then support this convention? Mr. RICE. I think if the reservations that we have proposed were adopted as reservations, I think the treaty would accomplish much and it would be deprived of its harmful side effects. Yes, I would support it.

Senator HELMS. Mr. Forte.

Mr. FORTE. Absolutely, sir.

The United States policy in all human rights treaties should be to increase respect for human rights, to protect the American constitutional order and to prevent these treaties from being perverted in a political way against those who really need the benefit.

I think the reservations that we are suggesting do all those three things. If the staffs could refine them with the State Department, I think the treaty would become an effective aspect of international human rights.

Senator HELMS. Just to make a point, I would ask this question.