case, in part, to apprise the Subcommittee of recent developments which sharply curtail the Filartiga holding. In February, 1984, in Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, a case concerning the terrorist bombing of a bus in Israel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a lower court opinion which denied jurisdiction under the same Alien Tort Claims Act. Each of the judges issued a concurring opinion, expressing sharply divergent views. Judge Edwards thought Filartiga rightly decided, but found the non-government defendants in Hanoch Tel-Oren not to be bound by what international norms might exist. Judge Bork criticized the holding in Filartiga. Judge Robb found the whole business to be so enmeshed with foreign affairs as to be inappropriate for judicial review of any kind. A petition for certiorari is now under consideration. The significance of Hanoch Tel-Oren is that it may curtail the right of any individual not only aliens to invoke international prohibitions against torture in a U.S. court. Such foreclosure would be a setback for the promotion of human rights, considering the international recognition given to the Filartiga decision and its ramifications for those torturers who would seek a haven on United States soil. Significant to note as well is the posture of the United States Government with regard to the private right of action in the two cases. In its 1979 amicus brief in Filartiga the United States Government argued that "in nations such as the United States where international law is part of the law of the land, an individual's fundamental human rights are in certain situations directly enforceable in domestic courts." In 1983, in a different case, and again not involving torture, the United States Government citing the holding in Hanoch Tel-Oren argued that "to sustain jurisdiction under [the Alien Tort Claims Act] for an alleged violation of customary international law, plaintiff must show...that customary international law recognizes or creates a right of action on behalf of private individuals in United States' courts." This 180 degree reversal reflects poorly on the decision making process of the United States Government; worse, the United States Government's new posture erodes the impact of Filartiga and may mean the end of such civil suits in the United States. It is possible that the draft U.N. Convention on Torture, which requires criminal prosecution of alleged torturers, would accomplish the same purpose. However, the ratification process is very slow and cumbersome and to be frank, this country's record on ratification of human rights treaties is too dismal to invest much hope in that initiative. I would certainly urge this Subcommittee to encourage early ratification of the final draft U.N.Convention; however, I would also like to propose that Congress consider 1 legislation to institute a private right of action in cases of alleged torture. This action would certainly deter those who engage in torture from seeking refuge in the United States and might also discourage the practice in general. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KOSTMAYER. Thank you very much. Mr. Shestack, its a pleasure to have a Pennsylvanian before the subcommittee at any time. Please proceed. Mr. SHESTACK. Thank you, Congressman Kostmayer. You've certainly been an avid supporter of human rights throughout your congressional career and before. And I hope the congressional career continues, especially in this election year. I'm sorry that there won't be the opportunity to add to the wisdom of Mr. Solomon who's left but perhaps he or his staff will submit some questions. Mr. KOSTMAYER. We'll have to forgo the wisdom of Solomon at least for the time being. STATEMENT OF HON. JEROME SHESTACK, PRESIDENT, INTERNA- Mr. SHESTACK. I appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of the International League for Human Rights and with me, in the audience, is Nina Shea, our Deputy Director. It was just 10 years ago that was the first time that I testified before this subcommittee. Congressman Frazier was then chairman of this subcommittee, and Congress at that time was first formulating its human rights policy. Many people think that the human rights policy of the United States started during President Carter's administration, and while it was active during that administration, it was really Congress in 1974 and 1975 that enacted the legislation that became the basis for our foreign policy. Human rights groups have always looked to Congress as a stalwart defender of human rights and whether its one administration or another, it really has been Congress that has proved an effective voice for human rights. So we're grateful to be here. The chairman of the subcommittee this afternoon invited the League to emphasize the international remedies for the eradication of torture. Unfortunately, it is the absence of remedies that characterizes the international law in this area. When one hears such testimony as Mr. Artucio, Mr. Buz, and Mr. Ghulam, one experiences a deep sense of dismay and frustration at the lack of remedies. I recall the poem by Mikolas Redenko who sits in a Soviet prison that he suffered torture to rend minds that would not bend and you heard today testimony from people whose minds would not bend although the efforts were made to rend their bodies through torture. Condemnation of torture, of course, is not the problem as a number of witnesses have already said. Virtually, every nation is willing to condemn torture. What is lacking is implementation of effective procedures and remedies that will put a halt to torture and it is a sad realistic fact of international law that enforcement procedures largely are impotent. Nevertheless, we have to use what we have and step by step formulate some kind of machinery for implementation. Let me say at the outset that really the most effective means for implementation, the best remedy, is world opinion, public pressure, public exposure, the glare of publicity and people speaking up. There's a mystique to world opinion. As I think has been mentioned, no one likes to be considered a torturer. When torture is exposed and people are courageous to speak up, when world leaders of important nations have not hesitated to speak publicly, it has had an affect. I'm willing there are too few willing to speak up. Nongovernmental organizations also can provide important remedies. There's no doubt, for example, that Amnesty International with its intensive campaign against torture, has achieved a great deal in easing of torture for numerous victims around the globe. And I think the human rights activists the world over are grateful to Amnesty for what it has initiated and pioneered and accomplished. I want to point to one small example from my own organization, the International League for Human Rights, with respect to Guinea. Under Sacoturo, torture was a regular practice in Guinea. In 1977, the League issued a 200-page communication detailing widespread torture of Guinean political prisoners by means of the so-called black diet or starvation. The Government of Guinea's concern about the League's allegation and the publicity that was received was so great that their foreign minister was dispatched to New York to try and persuade League representatives to withdraw the charges. It did not withdraw the charges, and we are told that at least for some period, the torture was eased. During the period that Indira Gandhi first took over the regime and tried some repressive tactics, many people were sent to prison in India and tortured. And the League issued a comprehensive report about that. Later, a Member of the parliament of India who was in prison and who had witnessed torture, said that after that League report came out that torture was eased in the Indian prisons for some 4 months. That may not be a long time, but for victims of torture, it was quite a long time. So the area of public opinion is important and one in which this subcommittee can play a major role in expressing its opposition to torture whenever it is found and urging the executive voice of this Nation which is powerful to do likewise. That's not an insignificant role and function for this subcommittee in today's world, and I hope it is one that this subcommittee will continue. legislation to institute a private right of action in cases of alleged torture. This action would certainly deter those who engage in torture from seeking refuge in the United States and might also discourage the practice in general. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KOSTMAYER. Thank you very much. Mr. Shestack, its a pleasure to have a Pennsylvanian before the subcommittee at any time. Please proceed. Mr. SHESTACK. Thank you, Congressman Kostmayer. You've certainly been an avid supporter of human rights throughout your congressional career and before. And I hope the congressional career continues, especially in this election year. I'm sorry that there won't be the opportunity to add to the wisdom of Mr. Solomon who's left but perhaps he or his staff will submit some questions. Mr. KOSTMAYER. We'll have to forgo the wisdom of Solomon at least for the time being. STATEMENT OF HON. JEROME SHESTACK, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND FORMER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE U.N. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ACCOMPANIED BY NINA SHEA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS Mr. SHESTACK. I appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of the International League for Human Rights and with me, in the audience, is Nina Shea, our Deputy Director. It was just 10 years ago that was the first time that I testified before this subcommittee. Congressman Frazier was then chairman of this subcommittee, and Congress at that time was first formulating its human rights policy. Many people think that the human rights policy of the United States started during President Carter's administration, and while it was active during that administration, it was really Congress in 1974 and 1975 that enacted the legislation that became the basis for our foreign policy. Human rights groups have always looked to Congress as a stalwart defender of human rights and whether its one administration or another, it really has been Congress that has proved an effective voice for human rights. So we're grateful to be here. The chairman of the subcommittee this afternoon invited the League to emphasize the international remedies for the eradication of torture. Unfortunately, it is the absence of remedies that characterizes the international law in this area. When one hears such testimony as Mr. Artucio, Mr. Buz, and Mr. Ghulam, one experiences a deep sense of dismay and frustration at the lack of remedies. I recall the poem by Mikolas Redenko who sits in a Soviet prison that he suffered torture to rend minds that would not bend and you heard today testimony from people whose minds would not |