Publications

Download full statement House Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Hearing on Liberia: Next Steps Towards Accountability for War & Economic Crimes June 13, 2024 – 10:30 a.m.  2360 Rayburn House Office Building STATEMENT Submitted by The Advocates for Human RightsCenter for Justice and AccountabilityCivil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform)CIVITAS MAXIMACoalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in LiberiaGlobal Justice and Research ProjectGlobal Justice CenterHuman Rights WatchSecretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia Delivered by Liz EvensonInternational Justice DirectorHuman Rights Watch Many thanks for the opportunity to brief the commission. I am Liz Evenson, and I direct the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses in some 100 countries around the world. We direct our advocacy towards governments, armed groups and businesses, pushing them to change or enforce their laws, policies and practices. And we work globally to champion meaningful and fair justice for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, before national and international courts. My statement today is presented on behalf of Human Rights Watch, together with The Advocates for Human Rights; Center for Justice and Accountability; Civil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform); CIVITAS MAXIMA; Coalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia; Global Justice and Research Project; Global Justice Center; and the Secretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia. This group represents American, Liberian, and international organizations all working together to bring justice to Liberian citizens. Together our groups have been advocating for the establishment of a Liberian-led war crimes court in Liberia to address the legacy of impunity for the widespread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law[1] that characterized the country’s two brutal armed conflicts, which took place between 1989 and 2003. Liberian men, women, and children were gunned down in their homes, marketplaces, and places of worship. In a few cases hundreds of civilians[2] were massacred in a matter of hours. Girls and women were subjected to horrific sexual violence[3] including gang-rape, sexual slavery, and torture. Children were abducted from their homes and schools and pressed into service, often after witnessing the murder of their parents. The violence blighted the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced almost half the population. While there have been a number of important criminal and civil cases outside of Liberia—and these cases have contributed to momentum within the country for justice[4]—to date not a single person has faced criminal investigation or prosecution in Liberia for serious crimes committed during the civil wars.In its 2009 final report, the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the creation of an extraordinary criminal court[5] which would be a hybrid court composed of Liberian and international judges, prosecutors and other staff with a mandate to try those allegedly responsible for committing serious crimes. A legislative conference to talk about accountability was organized in Monrovia in 2019 with the legislature of Liberia, a Liberian coalition of NGOs, and international partners.[6] There is now renewed momentum after nearly two decades for the establishment of a court. Most recently, in March and April of 2024, the Liberian Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the creation of a war and economic crimes court. On May 2, 2024, President Joseph Boakai signed an executive order[7] establishing an Office of the War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia. The US government has played a critical role in advancing progress. US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack has repeatedly voiced the US government’s partnership with Liberia in its journey to justice. Her commitments on behalf of the US government to support this process have been widely welcomed within Liberia. Members of Congress have also expressed their support for this court and justice for the Liberian people.[8] These developments are promising, and yet there is much work ahead that will need the support of the United States and others in the international community. Making Liberian-led justice a reality in Liberia requires sustained attention from justice champions in and outside of Liberia. What is needed now is for President Boakai’s administration to translate its stated commitment to a war crimes court into concrete steps for the court’s creation. We have made the following recommendations to the government of Liberia: Establish the Office proposed by President Boakai to be responsible for developing and implementing a concrete plan to establish a war and economic crimes court to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account, consistent with international standards and practice and ensure this plan is consistent with a victim-centered approach, including consultation with affected communities on the design of the court; Establish an independent committee comprised of government officials, a member of the Independent National Commission of Human Rights, international legal experts, and Liberian and international civil society actors from various sectors that is mandated to advise the government on the court’s creation. The committee should help establish a roadmap on the way forward for ensuring justice for war crimes and for strengthening the rule of law; Request assistance from the United Nations, African Union, Economic Community of West African States, and other international and regional partners as needed; Ensure a war crimes court for Liberia includes key elements in order to achieve trials that would be fair, meaningful, and credible:Composition of judicial benches that will have sufficient independence and expertise by including a majority of international judges on each trial and appeals bench;No bars on prosecution of individuals on the basis of their cooperation with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;Inclusion of crimes and modes of liability in line with international standards;Fair trial protections;Witness protection and support;Involvement of victims of abuses in proceedings; and Outreach and communications that inform the victims and public. Work with the legislature to ensure the war crimes court established to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account is consistent with international standards and practice; Request from international partners adequate support and funding, for programs designed to improve Liberia’s judiciary and criminal justice system, to ensure an effective war crimes court and victims’ access to justice and the right of the accused to a fair trial; Continue to support efforts by third countries to bring universal jurisdiction cases for civil war-era crimes, including by continuing to fully cooperate with foreign authorities who request authorization to come to Liberia to investigate international crimes; Develop and implement a comprehensive reparations scheme for all victims of gross human rights violations and war crimes; Ensure protection for human rights defenders inside Liberia against attacks and intimidation, and bring to justice those who intimidate or attack human rights defenders. The process and the work of the court itself must be Liberian-led. This means primarily that Liberians who were impacted by the civil wars and have long advocated for accountability have a leading voice in determining the court’s trajectory. Liberian experts should also fill key positions in the judiciary, prosecution, defense, and registry. Liberian ownership of the court is crucial to build and maintain local support for accountability processes. Ensuring the court benefits from Liberian experts will also ensure that investing in the court strengthens the domestic justice system, leading to long-term benefits across Liberian institutions. The first step towards ensuring that the court is Liberian-led is making sure that Liberians and regional experts play critical roles in the creation of the court. Liberian civil society has been advocating for accountability in Liberia at great personal risk. Powerful actors opposed to accountability for wartime atrocities and former warlords hold positions of power in Liberia, and international actors have also at times worked to undermine their efforts. As a result, members of civil society have received threats to their security and their work over the years. These threats continue to this day. It is imperative that international partners, including the United States government, continue to support Liberian civil society organizations and the crucial work they are doing to see accountability in Liberia for civil war-era atrocities. High-level messages from Liberia’s international and regional partners in support of a court are also needed to maintain positive momentum. Liberia should request international and regional support to help it to determine the best legal and structural modalities for the court’s creation in a manner that will enable fair, credible functioning and partners should pledge international support and expertise based on accumulated experience. We recommend that the US Congress: Make clear its support to a Liberian-led process to achieve justice in the country through the creation of a credible war crimes court, and support to Liberian civil society organizations engaged in this effort; Provide the requested support to the Liberian government and civil society organizations working on behalf of justice, including assistance in developing the necessary legislation and systems for the protection of victims and witnesses, support in the legal representation of victims, and processes to engage meaningfully with the public and victims and survivors to create awareness of the objectives of a war crimes court and to allow Liberian voices to inform the design of the court; Offer financial support for the court, as the US has done in several other contexts, including, for example, the annual contributions to the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic. [1] Human Rights Watch, Q&A: Justice for Civil Wars-Era Crimes in Liberia (April 1, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/01/qa-justice-civil-wars-era-crimes-liberia. [2] Jane W, John X, John Y, John Z v. Moses Thomas, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case number 2:18-cv-00569-PBT, https://cja.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Jane-W-v.-Moses-Thomas-18-cv-00569.pdf. [3] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, https://www.trcofliberia.org/resources/reports/final/trc-final-report-volume-1-full.pdf. [4] Civitas Maxima press release, US Court finds Liberian Rebel Commander “Jungle Jabbah” Guilty of Crimes Linked to Atrocities in Liberia’s First Civil War (October 18, 2017), https://civitas-maxima.org/us-court-finds-liberian-rebel-commander-jungle-jabbah-guilty-of-crimes-linked-to-atrocities-in-liberias-first-civil-war/; Civitas Maxima press release, Liberian Plaintiffs Make Swiss and Liberian Legal History (June 18, 2021), https://civitas-maxima.org/liberian-plaintiffs-make-swiss-and-liberian-legal-history/; Center for Justice and Accountability press release, U.S. Court Finds Former Liberian Military Commander Liable for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (September 16, 2021), https://cja.org/u-s-court-finds-former-liberian-military-commander-liable-for-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/. [5] Human Rights Watch news release, Justice for Liberia, (December 10, 2009), https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/12/10/justice-liberia. [6] University of Nottingham, SEWACCOL, Legislature of Liberia, Civitas Maxima and the GJRP press release, Legislative Conference Brings Liberia Closer to the Establishment of a War Crimes Court (July 20, 2019), https://civitas-maxima.org/legislative-conference-brings-liberia-closer-to-the-establishment-of-a-war-crimes-court/. [7] Dounard Bondo and Ruth Maclean, The New York Times, Liberia Moves to Create War Crimes Court, Decades After Civil Wars Ended (May 3, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/world/africa/liberia-court-war-crimes.html. [8] United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations press release, Risch Applauds Establishment of War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia (April 10, 2024), https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/risch-applauds-establishment-of-war-and-economic-crimes-court-in-liberia.

Dear Excellencies, We write to you ahead of the third UN-convened meeting of Special Envoys and Special Representatives on Afghanistan on 30 June–1 July 2024 in Doha, Qatar (“Doha III”), to continue to discuss the international community’s approach to Afghanistan. More than one year since the first Doha meeting, there is growing concern that the international community lacks the necessary resolve to defend and advocate for the human rights of Afghan women and girls. Many Afghan women civil society have even called for a boycott of continued negotiations with the Taliban until women’s rights are restored. Doha III therefore offers a decisive opportunity to demonstrate to all Afghans that their human rights are not a bargaining chip, but the foundation on which the future of their country depends. Since the last Doha meeting in February 2024, the Taliban’s abuses against Afghan women and girls, already unparalleled globally and condemned by international experts as gender apartheid, have continued to deepen. The Taliban are not only continuing to impose new restrictions violating the rights of women and girls, now numbering 97, but steadily intensifying their enforcement of existing decrees. The space for women and girls to make their own decisions and live their lives gets smaller every day. This is a clear signal that the international community’s approach to Afghanistan has thus far failed to deter the Taliban from its systematic repression of women’s rights. The upcoming meeting in Doha is a critical moment for the UN, Security Council and international community to coordinate around one key message: the rights of Afghan women and girls are not negotiable.

Dear President Biden: We write as organizations with a steadfast commitment to justice for grave international crimes and therefore to the success of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We urge your administration to oppose the threats and calls for punitive actions against the Court that several U.S. lawmakers have recently made. Acting on these calls would do grave harm to the interests of all victims globally and to the U.S. government’s ability to champion human rights and the cause of justice, which are stated priorities of your administration. Accountability is important for its own sake and protects against the commission of future atrocity crimes. Acting where it has jurisdiction and within its mandate as a court of last resort, the ICC works together with national authorities to ensure perpetrators of such crimes are held to account and that victims and affected communities find some measure of justice. While the United States is not an ICC member country, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the Court in specific cases, and the U.S. has assisted arrest operations to bring justice to victims in central Africa. Your own administration has recognized the Court’s essential role to address serious crimes in Ukraine and Darfur. We are alarmed by threats that U.S. lawmakers have aimed at the Court in recent weeks including the letter sent on April 24 by Senators, threatening to sanction the ICC prosecutor’s “employees and associates,” if steps were taken to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli officials. On May 20, the ICC prosecutor requested warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israeli officials stemming from his ongoing Palestine investigation; ICC judges will assess the request to determine whether to issue warrants.

Download the full submission I. Introduction Over the years, parties to armed conflicts have systematically used sexual and reproductive violence against civilians to demoralize, terrorize, destroy, and even alter the ethnic compositions of entire communities. A large proportion of the victims of this violence, sometimes over 80%, are children. Stark examples include Rwanda, where nearly 250,000-500,000 women were raped in one hundred days as a part of the genocide in 1994, and an estimated 20,000 “enfants mauvais souvenirs” (children of bad memories) were born from these rapes. In Bosnia, women were held in rape camps, repeatedly raped until they became pregnant, and intentionally confined until it was too late for them to obtain an abortion. Boko Haram raped hundreds of women and girls and held them in sexual slavery. During one rescue of victims kidnapped by Boko Haram, at least 214 women and girls were found to be pregnant. More recently, the UN confirmed that Russian forces have committed numerous acts of rape and other sexual violence, with victims ranging from age four to eighty-years-old, which the UN said in some cases amounted to torture and war crimes. The UN has also documented armed gangs in Haiti using sexual violence to punish individuals associated with rival gangs, and to “assert power and control over people”. While most victims have been women and girls, men and boys have also been abused and subjected to violence. LGBTQ+ individuals have also suffered grave sexual violence in Haiti, with LBTQ+ women recounting incidents of “corrective rape” to “cure” them of “homosexuality.” Sexual violence in conflict settings can amount to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CIDT) in violation of international human rights law (IHRL), international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). While all people in conflict settings have a right to protection from sexual violence and to reparations for such grave harm, all too often the compounded or independent reproductive harms individuals suffer go unrecognized and unremedied. For example, reproductive violence such as forced pregnancy, forced abortion, forced contraception and forced sterilization occurs regularly in conflict. Additionally, other reproductive rights violations such as lack of access to abortion, particularly when pregnancies are the result of rape, and to contraception and/or sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and services to enable individuals to prevent unwanted pregnancies occur frequently in crisis contexts. Maternal mortality and morbidity rates are also disproportionately high in conflict settings due to inadequate living conditions and lack of access to prenatal and maternal health care.

Summary of Argument Idaho’s near-total abortion ban restricts access to necessary emergency reproductive healthcare, exacerbating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and otherwise negatively impacting people capable of pregnancy in Idaho. The law’s narrow exception for life-saving care will not prevent or mitigate these harms in practice, and will leave patients in Idaho without access to emergency reproductive healthcare. The United States has ratified several human rights treaties—including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—which require it to guarantee access to safe and legal abortion services, in particular in emergencies or acute medical crises governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In accordance with the United States’ obligations under these treaties, the federal government—and therefore each state—is required to respect, protect and fulfil individuals’ international human rights to life; health; privacy; non-discrimination; and to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. These rights are directly jeopardized by Idaho’s draconian abortion law.

The undersigned organizations and individuals — with representation from multiple geographic regions — express our support for a global convention on crimes against humanity, and urge states to utilize the 2024 April Resumed Session of the UN’s Sixth Committee to express strong support for a procedure to be adopted at the 79th Session of the UN General Assembly to move the Draft Articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Humanity forward to negotiations for a treaty. Throughout history, millions of people have been subjected to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, persecution, and other atrocities that have shocked the conscience of humanity. Crimes against humanity continue unabated across the globe and the Draft Articles provide a timely and urgent opportunity for states to help end impunity. Although crimes against humanity are among the most serious crimes in international law, there has yet to be a treaty regulating their prevention and punishment. A treaty on crimes against humanity would close a crucial gap in the current international framework on mass atrocities as well as clarifying states’ duties to prevent such crimes and means to cooperate with each other. A crimes against humanity treaty can also rightfully contribute to global affirmation of the gravity of these crimes. In 2013, the UN’s International Law Commission approved crimes against humanity to be included in its programme of work. The Commission, in 2019, recommended the elaboration of a convention by the UN General Assembly or by an international conference.  In 2022, the UN’s Sixth Committee adopted resolution 77/249 to take forward steps for a treaty on crimes against humanity, including two interactive sessions in 2023 and 2024 on the Draft Articles, and a plan to take a decision on the ILC’s recommendation that a treaty go forward in the 79th session of the General Assembly. We believe the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles represent a strong starting point to open negotiations on a treaty. There is broad agreement that the Draft Articles contain a number of positive elements, and differences in perspectives on the existing Draft Articles should not be used to perpetuate inaction. Accordingly, we urge states to follow the Commission’s recommendation that a treaty on crimes against humanity should be negotiated, either by the General Assembly itself or in a Diplomatic Conference convened for that purpose. Our organizations also urge states at the April resumed session to identify important areas for further strengthening the Draft Articles. A variety of civil society groups have developed proposals toward this end. These include strengthening the proposed treaty by a variety of means. We urge states at the April resumed session also to express overall support for an approach to the development of a crimes against humanity treaty that is gender-competent, survivor-centric, and deploys an intersectional lens. This includes ensuring the inclusion of a non-discrimination provision to apply and interpret the treaty’s provisions consistent with international human rights law. We believe it is equally essential that the treaty-making process itself is inclusive. States should facilitate meaningful, inclusive, and safe public and civil society participation from across the region, in all stages of the treaty-development process, including by people of all gender identities, as well as victims, survivors, and affected communities, and ensure that their voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty. A full list of signatories can be found here.

The following responds specifically to question 1 regarding discrimination on the basis of gender and sexuality through laws, policies, directives, and requirements that target the rights of women and people with diverse gender identities, including members of Myanmar’s LGBTQ community. Gender-discriminatory laws and policies, and impunity for sexual and gender-based crimes, have long been the norm in Myanmar. Since independence in 1948, successive military regimes have perpetuated systemic discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The 2021 military coup greatly exacerbated gender-based discrimination and violence against women and people with diverse gender identities, and put an immediate end to any attempts to reform or eliminate these structural barriers to equality. The 2008 Constitution At the heart of Myanmar’s discriminatory laws and policies is the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The same document that laid the groundwork for the February 2021 coup through its broad emergency powers provision has also enabled a culture of complete impunity for military-perpetrated crimes, including sexual and gender-based violence. Though the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (CRPH) voted shortly after the coup to abolish the 2008 Constitution, it remains the law of the land in the parts of the country under junta control, and the junta regularly cites the Constitution’s authority. Even before the coup, the military faced no civilian oversight or accountability. The Constitution grants the military “the right to independently administer and adjudicate all affairs of the armed forces,” leaving it to hold itself accountable. This has created a culture of complete impunity for serious human rights violations, with a very small number of exceptions aimed at appeasing the international community. Furthermore, the Constitution grants amnesty for any crimes committed by the military under current or previous administrations, stating that no “proceeding” can be initiated against a member of the military “in respect of any act done in the execution of their respective duties.” The Constitution also exempts the Commander-in-Chief from all legal constraints, stating that his decision in the adjudication of military justice “is final and conclusive.” This provision has allowed the Commander-in-Chief, Min Aung Hlaing, to issue pardons to members of the military without oversight.

We the undersigned are writing to you to raise concern regarding the decision by several European governments to suspend or review their funding to several Palestinian and Israeli civil society organizations. We are deeply concerned by these developments and call on your government to reverse any decision to halt such crucial funding. A reduction in funds to these groups and organizations erodes human rights protections across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and call into question your ability to credibly promote and protect universal human rights values across the Middle East and North Africa. Several European states, namely Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, as well as the European Commission have taken measures to suspend or review their funding to Palestinian and Israeli civil society organizations due to unfounded allegations of diversion of funding to terrorist organizations. These measures have intensified following the attacks by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October 2023, where members of Hamas and other armed groups committed summary killings, hostage-taking of civilians, and launching indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel.

Overview: States should adopt a survivor-centric approach to the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention States must take a survivor-centric approach throughout when considering the Draft Articles on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity (the “Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention”). This is an essential approach in relation to all victims and survivors of crimes against humanity, particularly those who may face ongoing marginalization or risks, such as survivors of sexual violence and other gendered harms. A survivor-centric approach recognizes that victims and survivors of crimes against humanity will have suffered immense harm and trauma. It aims to put the rights and agency of each victim and survivor at the forefront of all actions and ensures that they are treated with dignity and respect and supported to make informed decisions with regards to accessing protection, support, justice, and remedy based on their own needs and priorities. Such an approach also requires states to keep at the forefront of their minds how the text of the treaty will actually affect victims and survivors, including consideration of how victims and survivors will be able to meaningfully and effectively access their rights through the treaty’s provisions and the institutions implementing them. It emphasizes that seeking justice is a right, not just a privilege, for victims and survivors. A survivor-centric approach thus requires states to ensure that victims’ and survivors’ rights are robustly protected and set out throughout the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention. International criminal law and international human rights law provide that victims and survivors have rights to: (i) effective protection; (ii) effective support; (iii) notice of their rights; (iv) timely notice of developments during proceedings, including those related to justice and remedy; (v) participate in criminal and other relevant legal proceedings; (vi) have legal representation during criminal and other relevant legal proceedings; (vii) obtain full and effective reparation; and (viii) have reparation awards enforced. Such an approach also requires that states ensure that all provisions related to protection, assistance, remedy, and reparations for victims and survivors respect and strengthen their autonomy and are provided irrespective of survivors’ ability or willingness to cooperate in legal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator. In line with the human rights law principle that requires all people to be involved in decision-making that affects them, a survivor-centric approach also requires states to meaningfully engage victims and survivors in treaty development, adoption, implementation and monitoring processes, participating in decisions that impact them, and ensuring that victims’ and survivors’ voices are adequately represented in the final provisions of the treaty. States must understand victims and survivors’ priorities at each stage of the process. For example, in other forums, victims and survivors have identified justice and accountability as a key priority, including by strengthening the ability of international and domestic justice systems to deliver justice for gender-based crimes. As victims and survivors are not a homogeneous group, when taking a survivor-centric approach, states must give particular consideration to ensuring the substantive equality of victims and survivors who are subjected to marginalization and discrimination, including intersectional discrimination. This brief first sets out the importance and potential avenues of state action to ensure robust, meaningful, and effective participation of victims and survivors in discussions and decision-making in relation to the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention (Section I). It then highlights specific ways in which the provisions of the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention should be strengthened to reflect international human rights law and standards in line with a survivor-centric approach, namely by: adopting a broad and unambiguous definition of ‘victim’ in the treaty that ensures all individuals harmed by crimes against humanity are included (Section II); and expanding the treaty’s reparations provisions (in present Draft Article 12(3)) to ensure all relevant victims and survivors have access to prompt, full, and effective reparations (Section III). It concludes with a non-exhaustive list of additional examples for consideration that states should include in discussions on the recognition and rights of victims and survivors (Section IV).