Now there is, of course, a linkage between the international procedures and mechanisms and public exposure and pressure, because those mechanisms are designed to achieve that public exposure. In my written report, I'll go into in some length, but I'll mention in briefest terms nine procedures. One is the issuance of reports. In many of the international human rights documents, there's a procedure for issuing reports about human rights conditions. If those reports are criticized and examined critically, that is one way of exposure. Another method is recommendations and resolutions, such as those adopted by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Very often those resolutions are politicized and they are not very effective. But sometimes they are. In the ILO [International Labor Organization] for example, about 40 percent of the recommendations are complied with. Now, there are 60 percent that are not complied with but in this field, one has to be grateful for 40 percent. Conciliation is another method. The U.N. Secretary General can use his good offices. The League has just asked the United Nations Secretary General to use his good offices in the case of Dr. Shakarov and Mrs. Shakarov who is being denied medical treatment. Sometimes, on a quiet basis, the U.N. Secretary General can be effective in their many instances when he has been effective, but he has to have the will to do so, and in our view, should do so more than he presently does. There are individual petitions, such as those filed at the U.N. Commission of Human Rights and the subcommission. Those petitions often presented through nongovernmental organizations such as Amnesty International, the ICJ [International Commission of Jurists], the international human rights groups, the Lawyers Committee, the International League and so on, presents information in a meaningful way where it can receive the glare of publicity. There is also the procedure of investigations and working groups. That's very important. When a Commission on Human Rights establishs a working group on disappearances, there's no doubt that that working group under Lord Colville, of the U.K. Chairmanship, helped ease disappearances throughout the world. After all, each case of disappearance saved is important to that particular person, and while you cannot quantify the results of that Commission, it does have its affect. The international, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has had missions in Latin America which have highlighted abuses including torture. There's no doubt, for example, that the Commission's report on Argentina had an important effect on that country and was one of the factors in easing disappearances in that country. Then there is a machinery for binding judgments, such as the European Court for Human Rights, and the potential of the InterAmerican Court or the National Court such as in the Filardiga case mentioned by Ms. Young. Those cases are not often used, but where you can get an international machinery such as on a European Court, that, of course, is quite effective. Then there's all the areas which the American Law Institute which is meeting this week in Washington, calls self-help. Self-help is in the area of bilateral relations. It is where a country that is disgusted at the human rights violations of another nation cuts off foreign aid or has a cooling or uses pressure to cease monetary loans. Those are all areas where a nation such as the United States, a powerful nation can be quite effective. And we had mentioned quiet diplomacy earlier. Quiet diplomacy is an important area but only where it's coupled by a willingness to go public and that of course should be done in an even-handed manner. Finally, I want to mention a standard. You have here what Ms. Young has mentioned, a new convention dealing with torture. It is now before ECOSOC and its likely to be passed before the General Assembly. The United States has not ratified one important human rights treaty. Certainly this could be the first and the very important one. Ratifying exceeding to a treaty dealing with torture. Now I know that's a Senate function, but I know that a House resolution calling upon the Senate showing the will of the House will certainly be important. It should certainly be important to the Executive. It takes 20 nations for that treaty to come into force. What a marvelous role model for the rest of the world the United States could supply by being the first. So I think there are opportunities. I mention finally in these standards, Vladamir Bukofsky, a Soviet dissident who had spent time in a psychiatric hospital, once asked himself what sense was there in expounding law; it was like expounding humanitarianism to a cannibal. And finally he decided after his experience as a political prisoner, he said, I crushed them with laws, pinned them down with articles, and stunned them with paragraphs. And its important to have these human rights standards in documents of freedom. It is true that implementation goes at a petty pace but the standards are there, they give hope and encouragement; they provide the procedure that can be utilized. The United States with respect to torture, I think, for the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt first served as chairperson of the Commission to Human Rights, has a chance to take the lead again and to be the first to ratify that important Convention. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. KOSTMAYER. Well, Mr. Shestack, I want to thank you for your testimony and apologize both to you and Ms. Young because the subcommittee's going to have to adjourn in the next 2 or 3 minutes. I want to ask just one brief question, if I may. Ms. Young, the national courts, I'm not an attorney, you're speaking of the kinds of courts we have in this country, Federal courts, national courts in other countries? Ms. YOUNG. That's right, yes, Federal courts, right. Mr. KOSTMAYER. How would this operate in countries which are, whose governments are unwilling to comply with these kind of international standards. What gives you reason to think that their courts would for any reason comply? Ms. YOUNG. Well, the provisions of-you're speaking of the U.N. Draft Treaty-the provisions of that treaty would obligate a state party to make torture a criminal offense, and to take all means to prosecute it under the usual criminal procedures. So it would just be adopted as part of their criminal code; it would be treated as if it were a theft or rape or burglary. Mr. KOSTMAYER. For the most part, torture which currently exists in countries is not against the law or it is against the law going on anyway? Ms. YOUNG. What this Convention really envisions is finding a torturer from another country in your country, not really prosecuting someone within the country in which he is torturing, but say, if we found someone in the United States against whom the allegations could be raised that he had committed torture against this particular person in Chile or in Nicaragua, or in South Korea, anywhere, then our courts would be seized with jurisdiction because it would be part of our criminal code. Mr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Solomon. Mr. SOLOMON. I just wanted to thank the witnesses for testifying. Mr. KOSTMAYER. Yes. I want to say to you, especially Mr. Shestack, we appreciate your testimony and I look forward to working with you on that possibility of a resolution. While of course, the House does not have treaty confirmation power, I think the notion you talked about might be a valid one and a valid way in which the House could express its view on the subject. And I again apologize for the short shrift we've given you this afternoon. I thank you very much for testifying. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the meeting was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.] THE PHENOMENON OF TORTURE WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1984 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gus Yatron (chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations) presiding. Mr. YATRON. The Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations will come to order. I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses, as well as our guests to the second part of our series of hearings on the "Phenomenon of Torture." During yesterday's hearing, torture was defined and examined by experts from the human rights and academic communities. Victims of this heinous crime described the physical and psychological suffering they experienced at the hands of their governments. Legal experts identified international laws and standards to be used in torture prevention. Still, our education on the practice of torture remains incomplete. Now that we have heard what torture is, and have seen how it affects peoples' lives, we must determine what specific actions can be taken to combat this cruelty. The purpose of today's hearing is to examine U.S. policy and legislation on torture, to ask advice from frontline professionals who have applied their knowledge and skills in fighting torture throughout the world, and seek recommendations from all the witnesses who have appeared before this subcommittee during these 2 days. It is my intention that these hearings on torture be a formal denounciation of governments that level inhumane and degrading treatment, and an affirmation of those governments that value and adhere to the basic tenants of human rights. Hopefully, these hearings will give us both the impetus and the ammunition necessary to protect the powerless. Our first witness today is the Honorable Elliott Abrams, the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Mr. Abrams, we welcome you to the subcommittee once again. Please proceed with your statement. Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question before we start? Excuse me for interrupting, sir. I understand there is going to be a vote on the approval of the Journal which was postponed until 10:25, and/or a quorum called at that time. What is going to be the procedure for the rest of the day then as far as this subcommittee is concerned, while the joint session is going on? Mr. YATRON. I know the joint session of Congress will be going on with the President of Mexico. I thought if we could continue with the hearing, I would prefer to do that. We could go over to the floor, vote, and come back. Unfortunately, we would have to miss the President of Mexico's speech. Mr. SOLOMON. OK. I have no objection. Mr. YATRON. Unless there is objection, I'd like to proceed in that order. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Leach? Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement. I would like to welcome our distinguished Assistant Secretary, and suggest that if he sticks with his text, it will be an excellent statement. I am sure you will not deviate from it, and we welcome it very much. This is an issue on which I think there is very little partisan division in the subcommittee, and we appreciate your coming this morning. Mr. YATRON. Thank you. STATEMENT OF HON. ELLIOTT ABRAMS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Leach. With that kind of introduction, I can assure you I'll stick with the text. Let me begin by saying that the Government of the United States is, of course, profoundly and unalterably opposed to any and all forms of torture. There can be no justification for such abhorrent practices, which offend the conscience of mankind and violate every moral law. Yet, despite the various international covenants and conventions designed to promote universal adherence to human rights, the tragic fact is that torture is widely practiced by governments today. According to Amnesty International's report, "Torture in the 1980's," prisoners have been tortured or cruelly treated in at least one out of every three countries within the past 4 years. The methods of torture range from the primitive to the sophisticated, and are a terrible reminder of mankind's capacity for inhumanity and evil. Clearly, torture is a human rights problem of enormous magnitude. The fact that torture is practiced by so many governments in so many parts of the world suggests that there is no one explanation to account for its persistence. Some regimes lack popular legitimacy and resort to torture in order to punish or intimidate dissidents. Other regimes feel them |