Mining in Guyana (2005)
In October 2005, Clinical Instructor Bonnie Docherty and students Jonathan Kaufman, Lisa Liu, and Britton Schwartz spent a week in Guyana working ,
on a study of gold mining and its effects on the environment and indigenous people. Two members of the team stayed in the capital, Georgetown to
update research done on a previous trip in January 2005. They also participated in advocacy meetings related to their findings. The other two students traveled into the
interior to interview indigenous people and document the effects of gold mining. In March 2007, the clinic completed a report,
All that Glitters: Gold Mining
in Guyana," documenting their research. Clinical Instructor Bonnie Docherty was interviewed by the BBC Caribbean for the report, which you can
listen to by clicking here (requires Windows Media Player).
Damião Ximenes Case Before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2005-2006)
HLS Advocates for Human Rights worked with
the Brazilian NGO Justica Global, to represent the family of
Damião Ximenes Lopes, beaten to death while in the custody of a publicly funded mental health center in Sobral, Brazil. Ximenes Lopes’ sister, Irene
Ximenes, investigated her brother’s death, pressing local authorities unsuccessfully to bring those responsible to justice. Irene Ximenes eventually
filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. That body opened a formal proceeding
against Brazil and
later ruled that the State had violated fundamental human rights. After Brazil failed to implement the Commission’s recommendations, the case was
forwarded to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Before the Court, HRP Clinical Director Professor James Cavallaro led a litigation team comprised of law students Jonathan Kaufman ’06, Fernando Delgado ’08,
Deborah Popowski ’08, and Brazilian attorney Renata Lira in sessions before the Court. There, after arguments by Cavallaro, the Commission, and the Brazilian
government, the Court dismissed Brazil’s preliminary objections. After the State conceded that it had violated the
American Convention on Human Rights,
articles 4 (right to life) and 5 (right to physical integrity), the Court heard two days of arguments and witnesses on the denial of the right to
justice enshrined in articles 8 and 25 of the same instrument.
In August 2006, the Inter-American Court decided in favor of Damião's family, the first time the Court has issued a ruling on a human rights violation
related to people with mental disabilities. The Court decided in its sentence that, according to Articles 1.1, 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the
American Convention
on Human Rights, Brazil was guilty of violating the rights to physical integrity and to life of Damião Ximenes Lopes, and the rights to access to
justice and due process of his family.
Gilson Nogueira Case Before Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2005-2006)
On October 20, 1996, gunmen riddled Brazilian rights activist Gilson Nogueira with nearly 20 shots, killing him instantly. Nogueira had been
investigating a death squad composed of members of state security services. Since the 1996 murder, a coalition of Brazilian rights groups has
pressed for a thorough investigation into the murder. To date, despite overwhelming evidence tying while authorities have taken a series of timid
steps, no one has been convicted for participating in the crime.
For years, International Human Rights Clinic Director James Cavallaro has been involved in efforts to bring the killers to justice,
including through a petition to the Inter-American Commission and
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Gilson Nogueira case is scheduled to be
heard by the Court in early 2006. A team of students, through the Human Rights Program’s International Human Rights Clinic, was involved
in the litigation and participated in Court sessions in San José, Costa Rica.
Paraguay Project (2006)
In recent years, rising crime has provided support for anti-criminal discourse and repressive measures that violate fundamental human
rights. The International Human Rights Clinic has traveled to Paraguay in October 2005 and March 2006 to research rights abuse in the
context of the battle to control crime. The Clinic continues to work with Paraguayan partner organizations to develop strategies for crime
control that respects rights.
Indigenous Rights in Peru (2005)
This project involved giving assistance to a Peruvian human rights NGO, Asociacion Paz y Esperanza, in designing an oversight mechanism for the
International Labor Organization Convention 169, concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Paz y Esperanza developed this mechanism as a
systematized effort to measure the Peruvian government's compliance with international norms for indigenous people's rights, with the goal of
having the mechanism adopted by the government as an independent ombudsman office. HLS Advocates, under the supervision of the International
Human Rights Clinic, researched international norms and jurisprudence outside of the ILO Convention 169 as a way to expand and interpret
the articles contained within that treaty.
International Challenge to the Canadian Limitations on Refugees’ Rights (2005)
HLS Student Advocates, together with
the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Vermont Refugee Assistance, Amnesty International Canada,
Freedom House (Detroit, MI), Global
Justice Center, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic
filed a petition with the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights against the State of Canada. The petition argued that Canada’s actions, in “directing back” persons seeking refugee
status violates the
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The suit grew
out of a Canadian immigration policy implemented in January 2003 whereby authorities return refugee claimants at the United States-Canada border
to the United States without seeking assurances that these claimants will be permitted to return to Canada for hearings. Once in the United
States, authorities returned many asylum applicants without analyzing their claim to refugee status.
The litigation against Canada included an October 2005 hearing before the Inter-American Commission and several
filings from both parties.
Documentation Project in Haiti (2004-2005)
On February 29, 2004, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide left Haiti as a group of rebels seized
Port-au-Prince. Since the opposition has taken
power, it has been alleged that the new government has committed and condoned serious human rights abuses against Aristide supporters, including
arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings. At the same time, Aristide supporters
have been accused of violent attacks on government supporters. Since July 2004, the
Brazilian-led United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti
(MINUSTAH) has been deployed in the country with a mandate to restore the rule of law and enforce human rights protections.
An International Human Rights Clinic delegation traveled with the Global Justice Center,
to Haiti to document human rights abuses
that took place on MINUSTAH’s watch. A second delegation returned to Haiti in January 2005 to conduct further on-site research. The International
Human Rights Clinic and the
Global Justice Center
interviewed victims and authorities as well as staff of MINUSTAH, the United Nations, the police, and the current government.
In March 2005, the Clinic and the Global Justice Center
released a report on their findings entitled
“Keeping the Peace in Haiti?: An Assessment of the
United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti Using Compliance with its Prescribed Mandate as a Barometer for Success.”
Access to ARVs: United States (2004-2005)
The U.S. government has sought to condition free trade agreements with countries in Central and South America, Asia and Africa upon the allowance of
expanded intellectual property rights for manufacturers of antiretroviral (ARV) therapies, drugs for treatment of HIV and AIDS. Health and social
justice advocates argue that increased intellectual property protection hinders efforts to promote public health by denying people in developing
countries access to life-saving ARVs. The trade provisions being drafted and enforced by the U.S. government violate law, including international
human rights, international trade laws such as those rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the creation of regional
trade-related agreements, and multilateral trade-related agreements including the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs).
The International Human Rights Clinic has been researching the relevant international trade law, intellectual property law, and WTO dispute resolution
processes. HRP's International Human Rights Clinic and Harvard Law Student
Advocates for Human Rights are now working with the Institute for Health and Social Justice (IHSJ) at
Partners in Health (a Boston-based NGO) and the
Program in Infectious Disease and Social Change (PIDSC) at Harvard
Medical School to develop strategies to advocate for the right to access to ARVs.
Community Displacement in Brazil (2004-2005)
A Consortium formed by a Canadian-based multinational administered a hydroelectric dam project in Brazil. To build the dam, the consortium, in
conjunction with local authorities, has removed local
residents from their traditional homes. Residents allege having been pressured to sell their homes, including by threats and intimidation. The
consortium and local authorities have built substandard homes in the new settlement, including a number for families that had refused to sell their
homes. Police removed these residents by force.
The International Human Rights Clinic worked with a Brazilian rights coalition, both in Brazil and Canada, to hold the consortium
accountable for the displacement of the communities affected.
The Guatemala CICIACS Project (2003-2004)
Students on this project worked with a coalition of Guatemalan human rights NGOs that negotiated with the Guatemalan government, the
UN and the OAS to create an investigatory commission to prosecute grave abuses in Guatemala. The students researched non-doctrinal
aspects of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
(the “Special Court”) as a possible model for Guatemala. The memorandum outlined structural
aspects of the Special Court for the group and helped to flag potential issues for the group’s negotiations and evaluation of potential options.
Status of Limitations for Human Rights Abuses in Suriname (2003-2004)
HLS Student Advocates, together with the Global Justice Center,
filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition of the
Inter-American Commission for Human Rights regarding the "Moiwana Village Case",
Stefano Ajintoena et al. v. The Republic of Suriname.
Harvard Law Student Advocates for Human Rights
and the Global Justice Center partnered with the law firm of
Latham & Watkins LLP on this brief.
The case concerned the 1986 massacre in the village of Moiwana by members of the armed forces of Suriname. Soldiers attacked villages, terrorized
residents, massacred more than 40 men, women, and children, and then destroyed the targeted villages. Although authorities detained some low-level
soldiers briefly, they have failed to prosecute or punish anyone for the massacre. The survivors remain displaced from their land and unable to remake
their lives as a community.
In 1987, just one year after the massacre, Suriname ratified the
American Convention on Human Rights. The amicus focuses not on the massacre itself, but
rather whether the failure to investigate these atrocities after Suriname ratified the
American Convention, and continuing up until this day,
constitute violations of international obligations under the American Convention. The student’s amicus brief argued that the killings and the
continuing denial of justice constitute ongoing violations that the court is competent to hear.
Corporal Punishment in Trinidad and Tobago (2003-2004)
Harvard Law Student Advocates for Human Rights, together with
the Global Justice Center, filed an
amicus curiae brief in support of the petition of the
Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights arguing that Trinidad and Tobago's use of lashes with a “cat-o-nine tails” constitutes illegally proscribed torture. Harvard Law Student Advocates for
Human Rights and the Global
Justice Center partnered with the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP on this brief, submitted in Caesar v. The Republic of
Trinidad and Tobago, pending before the Court.
The brief argues that flogging with a "cat-o-nine tails" – a plaited rope made of nine knotted thongs of cotton cord approximately 30 inches long – standing
alone or with other abuses suffered, constitutes “torture” under the American
Convention on Human Rights and other international law. The brief also agued
in support of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
which Trinidad and Tobago disputes.
