View previous stories
	Justice systems and courts play an important role in ensuring the enjoyment of human rights by Judge Silvia Fernandez de Gurmendi President of the International Criminal Court (ICC)   On 10 December 2015, the International Criminal Court joins the rest of the world in marking Human Rights Day, which commemorates the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 67 years ago.   Justice systems and courts play an important role in ensuring the enjoyment of human rights worldwide.   Access to impartial, independent justice and the right to an effective remedy are integral elements of human rights, as well as a precondition for the effective protection of other rights and freedoms, as reflected in the Universal Declaration and numerous other human rights instruments.   The International Criminal Court plays a vital role in the international system of the rule of law. It is a court of last resort that can provide an effective remedy for the most serious international crimes when national jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to do so. Independence, impartiality and fair proceedings are cornerstones of the Court''s work at all stages.   Under the Rome Statute, the Court goes to unprecedented lengths to ensure that victims can participate effectively in its proceedings and can apply for reparations for the harm they have suffered as a consequence of the crimes committed.   At the same time, the broader Rome Statute system of international criminal justice promotes the strengthening of national jurisdictions under the principle of complementarity, which recognizes the primary right and responsibility of domestic courts to address genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.   The fundamental importance of access to justice was recently reiterated in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in September this year by the United Nations. Goal 16 of the Agenda formulates a commitment to "promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels", and further addresses the need to reduce and prevent violence and to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels.   The International Criminal Court and the broader Rome Statute system are making important contributions to these goals by addressing some of the most serious human rights violations through criminal prosecution as well as measures for the benefit of victims.   However, the International Criminal Court does not have the power to intervene in every situation where core international crimes may have been committed. While 123 States have voluntarily joined the Rome Statute, granting the ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territory or by their nationals, more than 70 States remain outside the Court''s jurisdiction.   On this Human Rights Day, I invite all States to join the Rome Statute if they have not done so, and I invite all States to support the Court as well as to further strengthen their national jurisdictions. Without independent and impartial tribunals there cannot be equal access to justice, effective remedies or strong deterrence of future crimes. Visit the related web page
	Torture and presidential candidates by Raha Wala Human Rights First USA   Should the United States government ever bring waterboarding back? The question came up in the recent GOP debate with Donald Trump advocating such a position, reigniting a familiar post-9/11 conversation over the use of torture to fight terrorism. Here are some legal and policy issues that every candidate or policymaker should understand about waterboarding and other so called “enhanced interrogation” techniques.   Waterboarding meets the legal definition of torture, and is therefore illegal. Torture under U.S. and international law means acts that cause severe mental or physical pain or suffering. There’s no question that waterboarding meets that definition. With waterboarding, a detainee is immobilized on his back while water is poured over a cloth covering his face, creating the extremely painful sensation of drowning.   Waterboarding is also known to cause bleeding from the ears, severe lung and brain damage, and lasting psychological damage. That some executive branch lawyers after 9/11 wrote legal opinions arguing that waterboarding is not torture does not change the fact that domestic and international law considers it to be torture. The United States has actually prosecuted enemy combatants for the war crime of waterboarding American soldiers.   While most of the attention is focused on waterboarding, other so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” are also unlawful as torture or other forms of detainee abuse. Sleep deprivation, for example, can result in lasting physical harm. It was often combined with painful stress positions, forced standing, or placement in cramped confinement, such as coffin-sized boxes. Detainees were also subjected to sensory deprivation through isolation in complete darkness or constant light, and extended exposure to white noise or loud music. These and other so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” almost certainly rise to the level of torture, especially when used in combination. They are also prohibited by federal and international law that bans cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment—unlawful detainee abuse that does not rise to the level of torture.   Congress has repeatedly banned so-called “enhanced interrogation” on a bipartisan basis. In response to detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, Congress, with a 90-9 vote in the Senate, prohibited all U.S. government agencies and departments from engaging in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Just last year—with a 78-21 vote in the Senate that included support from the chairs and ranking members of the Senate armed services, intelligence, homeland security, foreign affairs, and judiciary committees—Congress passed anti-torture legislation sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), which limits the intelligence community to only those interrogation techniques allowed under the Army Field Manual (AFM).   (The AFM prohibits waterboarding and other abusive techniques.)   Bipartisan opposition to torture extends back to our founding fathers, and more recently to President Reagan, whose administration signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture.   The facts on waterboarding and other so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques are clear: they are unlawful, ineffective, and counterproductive. Any candidates and policymakers who seek to revive these techniques should know that, in addition to violating clear federal and international law, they will have to contend with bipartisan majorities in Congress.   * Raha Wala is senior counsel for defense and intelligence at Human Rights First. Visit the related web page
	View more stories