Center for Justice and Accountability

The Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) is a US non-profit international human rights organization based in San Francisco, California. Founded in 1998, CJA represents survivors of torture and other grave human rights abuses in cases against individual rights violators before U.S. and Spanish courts. CJA has pioneered the use of civil litigation in the United States as a means of redress for survivors from around the world. Accessed 19 January 2009.

Mission

The Center for Justice & Accountability is dedicated to ending torture and other human rights abuses while vindicating the rights of survivors to seek truth, justice and redress. Through criminal and civil litigation, CJA works to create a record of truth and refine human rights jurisprudence, while promoting the principles of universal jurisdiction and the rule of law. Often, the impact of CJA's casework extends beyond redress for the immediate plaintiffs and can serve as a catalyst for transitional justice movements abroad. While CJA works to close off the United States as a safe haven for violators of human rights, the organization also supports efforts to prosecute violators in national courts around the world.

History

In August 1998, The Center for Justice & Accountability filed its first case, '' Mehinovic v. Vuckovic'', on behalf of a Bosnian torture and detention camp survivor. Since then, CJA has pursued an extensive docket of human rights cases, winning favorable verdicts in all cases that have gone to trial. As of early 2009, CJA has filed high-profile cases against the following former military or political leaders who were responsible for systematic human rights abuses:
*Two commanders in the Peruvian military responsible for the Accomarca massacre
*Two heads of state of Guatemala and other senior military personnel
*A member of the Haitian High Command
*The leader of a Haitian death squad
*A Vice Minister of Defense of El Salvador
*A Prime Minister of Somalia
*A Defense Minister of Somalia
*A Honduran Chief of Military Intelligence

In recognition of its accomplishments, CJA was awarded the Third Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights on October 1, 2007. The Dodd Prize is awarded biannually by the University of Connecticut to an individual or group who has made a significant effort to advance the cause of international justice and global human rights.

Legal framework for human rights litigation

Civil litigation for human rights

CJA is part of a movement of legal non-governmental organizations who use civil litigation to enforce international human rights law in the U.S. CJA's litigation draws on two principal statutes: the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (also known as the Alien Tort Claims Act) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). These statutes grant U.S. courts jurisdiction to hear civil actions filed against perpetrators of gross human rights violations, even when those violations took place overseas.

Since the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal's landmark 1980 decision in '' Filartiga v. Pena-Irala'', this class of civil action has opened up U.S. federal courts to the implementation of international law and human rights safeguards:

In the twentieth century the international community has come to recognize the common danger posed by the flagrant disregard of basic human rights  ... Among the rights universally proclaimed by all nations  ... is the right to be free of physical torture. Indeed, for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—''hostis humani generis'', an enemy of all mankind. Our holding today  ... is a small but important step in the fulfillment of the ageless dream to free all people from brutal violence.

The authors of ''International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts''—the authoritative manual for ATS and TVPA litigation—echo the Filartiga ruling:

Although not a substitute for other means of holding perpetrators accountable, human rights litigation contributes to an important long-term objective: working toward a world in which those who commit gross violations of human rights are brought to justice swiftly, in whatever country they try to hide.

Legal scholar Beth Van Schaack has argued that these broader objectives place human rights litigation in line with the public impact litigation model pioneered by the American civil rights movement. Both strategies aim to effect systemic social change through the legal process. In the majority of CJA's cases, however, the primary focus remains on direct client advocacy: the needs of a client take first priority, while a case's broader impact remains a second order effect. (cf. "With All Deliberate Speed: Civil Human Rights Litigation as Tool for Social Change")

Universal jurisdiction

Underpinning CJA's mission is the principle of universal jurisdiction. With roots in the ancient body of law related to piracy and slave-traders, this doctrine of international law holds that certain crimes are so egregious that the perpetrators may be held accountable wherever they are found. Since the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-49, modern jurisprudence has extended the doctrine to encompass the following crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture.

In 2001, the Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction, defined universal jurisdiction as:

iminal jurisdiction based solely on the nature of the crime, without regard to where the crime was committed, the nationality of the alleged or convicted perpetrator, the nationality of the victim, or any other connection to the state exercising such jurisdiction.

CJA has drawn on the principle of universal jurisdiction to try cases in U.S courts and before the Spanish National Court. Since the 1998 prosecution of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, Spain has adopted universal jurisdiction over cases of severe violations of international human rights law. CJA has initiated criminal investigations with the Spanish court to prosecute human rights abuses in Guatemala and El Salvador.

In a July 18, 2006 interview, CJA executive director, Pamela Merchant, made clear the connection between ATS litigation and broader universal jurisdiction efforts:

iversal jurisdiction is the endgame ... Here we're using the Alien Tort Statute, lsewherewe're using other vehicles, but there are crimes so outrageous that they should be prosecuted anywhere if the appropriate governments aren't doing it.

Command responsibility

Proponents of universal jurisdiction assert that real deterrence cannot be achieved until military and government officials are aware that they can be held individually accountable, not just for committing abuses, but for their failure to take reasonable action to stop others under their command from committing abuses. This claim is derived from the principle of command responsibility, the doctrine of complicity which provided the legal foundation for the Nuremberg Trials against senior Nazi war criminals. The command responsibility doctrine was enshrined in U.S. law by the U.S. Supreme Court decision ''In Re Yamashita'' (1946). Command responsibility is now an established theory of liability, thanks in part to the body of case law that has developed around CJA's litigation and the casework of other organizations pursuing similar strategies, notably the Center for Constitutional Rights