Human Rights at Home Blog

March – April 2024 Deadlines: Calls for Input by Human Rights Mechanisms

The following calls for inputs have been issued by UN Human Rights Mechanisms with deadlines in March – April 2024 and law professors whose practice, research, and/or scholarship touches on these topics may be interested in submission:

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the High Commissioner’s report on how climate change can have an impact on the realization of the equal enjoyment of the right to education by every girl. Deadline March 1, 2024. Read more.

Working Group on Business and Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the Working Group’s report on respecting the rights of LGBTI people in the context of business activities: fulfilling obligations and responsibilities under the UNGPs. Deadline March 1, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s visit to the United States of America, scheduled to take place from 29 April to 10 May 2024, focused on academic freedom and safety at all levels of education and access to public education from kindergarten to 12th grade without discrimination. Deadline March 2, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs on application of digital technologies in the administration of justice, to inform the Secretary General’s report to the General Assembly on human rights in the administration of justice. Deadline March 9, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – Call for inputs on the challenges faced by mobile Indigenous Peoples, and the initiatives undertaken by States, Indigenous Peoples and other stakeholders to recognize and respect their rights, to inform the Special Rapporteur’s upcoming report. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more. 

Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries – Call for inputs to inform the WG’s 2024 thematic report on financing and mercenaries and mercenary related actors. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more.

Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries – Call for inputs to inform the WG’s 2024 thematic report on arms trafficking and mercenaries and mercenary related actors. Deadline March 15, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s 2024 thematic report on Pollution Information Portals and strengthening access to information on releases of hazardous substances. Deadline March 22, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing – Call for inputs to inform the forthcoming reports of the Special Rapporteur on resettlement as a human rights issue. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery – Call for inputs on the role of workers’ organisations in preventing and addressing contemporary forms of slavery. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Committee on Migrant Works – Joint call for inputs to inform concept paper on obligations of state parties on public policies for addressing and eradicating xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants, their families, and other non-citizens affected by racial discrimination. Deadline March 31, 2024. Read more.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs on promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and of people of African descent against excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officers through transformative change for racial justice and equality. Deadline April 1, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls – Call for inputs to inform the Special Rapporteur’s report on violence against women and girls in sport. Deadline April 8, 2024. Read more.

 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Call for inputs to inform the expert workshop and High Commissioner’s report to the Human Rights Council on the centrality of care and support from a human rights perspective. Deadline April 13, 2024. Read more.

Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures – Call for inputs to develop a comprehensive set of Guiding Principles to be used by states, regional organizations, businesses and other actors with regards to sanctions and compliance, and, by that, to minimize negative impact of all types of sanctions, compliance and over-compliance with sanctions on human rights. Deadline April 30, 2024. Read more.

This information was compiled from https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input-listing.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision bans life without parole sentences for people under age 21

By Noelle Gulick, 3L Northeastern Law

On Thursday January 11, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) released an important decision stating that life without parole (LWOP) sentences for people under 21-years-old are unconstitutional. The case is Commonwealth v. Sheldon Mattis, and the court raised the minimum age that a person can be sentenced to LWOP to 21-years-old. Before this decision, the age was 18-years-old. Extending the decision to those who are 18-, 19-, and 20-years-old is a strong step in the right direction of protecting the human rights and dignity of these people.

In this case, Mattis argued that his mandatory sentence of life without parole violated the Massachusetts state constitution’s article 26 which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. He argued that it is cruel and unusual to expect someone, especially a child or “emerging adult”, to spend the rest of their life in prison without any possibility of being released even on parole.

The court looked at new research on brain development after the age of 17, diminished culpability, social science, susceptibility to peer influence, and the greater capacity for change that younger people have. The court stated that this category of “emerging adults” (18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds) have many of the same “neurological characteristics” as kids under 18-years-old have.

It has been accepted that LWOP nationwide is not a suitable sentence for kids under 18. However, Massachusetts is the first state in the United States to ban life without parole sentences for people under 21, following the lead of other nations, international standards, and human rights law.

The court’s analysis included a look at other nations’ decisions and international statutes, noting that the UK has banned life without parole for anyone under 21 at the time of the offense. It also noted that Canada has ruled that life without parole is unconstitutional for anyone, no matter the age. Life without parole sentences, particularly for young people, are widely condemned under international law. One of the concurring opinions in this case cited the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are several human rights treaties that condemn juvenile life without parole including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The ruling is retroactive, which means that people who have already been sentenced to life without parole for something that occurred when they were 18-20-years-old will soon be eligible to apply for parole. This means that about 70 people who were convicted in Suffolk County will become eligible for parole.

This decision is a step towards limiting the large number of life without parole sentences that are given in the United States, protecting the human rights of people facing these sentences, and to the United States following international legal norms.

U.S. failure to engage in constructive dialogue with U.N. experts during the 2023 ICCPR Review – Part II

By Ámbar Reyes Pérez, Musa Siam, Roaa Hussien, 3Ls at UIC Law, and Professors Sarah Dávila A., and Lauren E. Bartlett

Part I of this two-part post was published here and builds on the previous post written by Profs. Dávila A. and Bartlett on the 2023 ICCPR review.

Benefits of Human Rights Treaty Reviews for State Parties

The benefits of reporting incentivize countries to participate in treaty reviews. Human rights treaty reviews allow them to gain technical advice from experts on implementing the rights set out within the treaties they have ratified. Moreover, the treaty review allows for the conversion of interstate complaints into reports, allowing regional and international human rights mechanisms to engage with those reports of human rights violations.  

The core foundation of the human rights reporting process is engagement. In compiling these reports, countries are supposed to reflect and assess their own human rights situations, including violations. Countries are encouraged to conduct comprehensive reviews of their human rights policies implementation and progress and then identify gaps presenting obstacles to achieving a society based on dignity and human rights. The bottom line is that human rights treaty body reporting allows for review by other countries, United Nations entities, constructive dialogue, civil society input and international expert advice.

The Role of U.S. Civil Society in the Human Rights Treaty Review

The Human Rights Committee considers the role of civil society key to fulfilling its mandate effectively. Specifically, the Committee considers it necessary that the constructive dialogue be based on information received from the state party, other United Nations entities, and civil society.  Civil society provides information to the state party, which the state party should put in its periodic reports.  Civil society also provides information directly to the Committee through alternative or “shadow” reports and the presentation of oral information during briefings with the Committee.

Ahead of the review of the United States in October 2023, U.S. civil society submitted 127 shadow reports to the Human Rights Committee.  A summary of those reports was compiled by the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law and the Program on Human Rights and Global Economy at Northeastern Law.  The shadow reports covered issues as broad as the need to establish a National Human Rights Institution, to discrimination based on gender and sex, freedom of expression, assembly and association, Indigenous rights, the right to privacy, treatment of non-citizens, refugees and asylees, rights to food and water, criminalization of homelessness and poverty, and the treatment of persons deprived of liberty, among others.

U.S. civil society was also able to both formally and informally present oral information to the Committee. Committee members participated in informal briefings organized by U.S. civil society in July and September 2023, with two in-person during the week leading up to the formal review in October 2023.  In addition, the Committee allowed almost ninety minutes for U.S. civil society to present during the formal NGO briefing for its 139th session on Monday October 16, 2023. There were a record number of U.S. civil society members present in-person in Geneva for the review - over 140 persons traveled to Geneva to attend the review. Oral presentations by directly impacted persons made up the majority of those oral presentations to the Human Rights Committee, including those impacted by death by incarceration sentences, those subjected to racial discrimination and excessive force at the hands of the Border Patrol, Indigenous voices, and more.

As has been noted on this blog previously, the Fifth Periodic Report submitted by the United States to the Committee was  incomplete and outdated.  Therefore, the information provided by U.S. civil society helped provide the Human Rights Committee with a fuller and more accurate understanding of the human rights issues and violations of human rights at the federal, state, and local level in the United States.

The Constructive Dialogue at the U.S. Review in 2023

The Constructive Dialogue between the Human Rights Committee and the U.S. took place on October 17 and 18, 2023. On October 17, Ambassador Michèle Taylor began by giving some broad opening remarks to the Committee. The Country Report Task Force for the U.S. Review, consisting of Committee members Tijana Šurlan, Imeru Tamerat Yigezu, Changrok Soh, Marcia V.J. Kran, and Yvonne Donders, then began asking the U.S. government delegation direct questions, most of which focused on information provided by U.S. civil society. Other Committee members also asked additional questions to the U.S. delegation.  For example, Ms. Donders asked what the U.S. does to combat racism in the criminal justice system and what targets does the U.S. set to eliminate bias. 

The U.S. government delegation then had a chance to respond to the Committee’s questions. The U.S. officials’ responses consisted entirely of reading pre-written statements that did not directly address the questions the Committee asked. The Committee then took a brief break and came back to ask a few more questions.  The U.S. delegation responded briefly before the Committee Chair Abdo Rocholl adjourned the session for the day.

On October 18, 2023, the Country Report Task Force started off by asking deeper, more probing questions of the U.S. delegation. For example, Committee Member Kran asked what measures the United States is taking to address voting disenfranchisement for those who have served felony sentences. Ms. Kran also asked the U.S. delegation to please engage with her and her colleagues’ specific questions and not speak generally. The U.S. delegation again responded by reading pre-written statements that did not directly address the questions asked by the Committee. The Committee took a break and when the Committee came back, a few additional Committee members asked questions.  The U.S. delegation responded again by reading pre-written statements that were only sometimes responsive to the questions presented by the Committee.

When Ambassador Michèle Taylor began providing her broad closing remarks, U.S. civil society members silently stood up and turned their backs on the Ambassador. Once the Ambassador completed her remarks, civil society turned and sat back down. In her closing remarks, Human Rights Committee Chair Abdo Rocholl re-emphasized that the Committee recommended that the United States ratify each of the United Nations human rights treaties and thanked the large number of people from U.S. civil society and government who attended the review - she said thanks in a few indigenous languages - before formally closing the Fifth Periodic Review of the United States by the Human Rights Committee.

The protest was important for U.S. civil society members who were present at the U.S. review. They were frustrated and outraged over the U.S. government’s failure to reply to the Committee’s important questions. The sheer number of civil society members in the room and the dramatic but otherwise un-interrupting silent protest was meant to send a strong message to the U.S. government. Hopefully the U.S. government will do better next time.

U.S. failure to engage in constructive dialogue with U.N. experts during the 2023 ICCPR Review – Part I

Photo @Kaitlyn Kennedy

By Ámbar Reyes Pérez, Musa Siam, Roaa Hussien, 3Ls at UIC Law, and Professors Sarah Dávila A., and Lauren E. Bartlett

This two-part post builds on the previous post written by Profs. Dávila A. and Bartlett on the 2023 ICCPR review.

On October 18. 2023, U.S. civil society engaged in a spontaneous protest over the failure of the U.S. government delegation to engage in constructive dialogue with the U.N. Human Rights Committee (“Human Rights Committee” or “Committee”). Photos and videos of that protest when viral, with news media and social media across the globe discussing the protest without knowing the context. During closing remarks by U.S. Ambassador Michèle Taylor during the Human Rights Committee’s Fifth Periodic Review of the United States, U.S. civil society members silently stood up and turned their backs.  Once the ambassador completed her remarks and the Committee Chair Tania María Abdo Rocholl began her closing remarks, civil society members sat back down.  This silent protest was a powerful statement by U.S. civil society organizations expressing frustration and outrage over the U.S. delegation’s failure to reply to the Committee’s important questions about broad domestic and foreign policy human rights issues from systemic racism, militarization, mass incarceration, reproductive health, immigration, detention, as well as the U.S. failure to protect civilians and prevent mass atrocities in Gaza. 

This blog post attempts to address what the constructive dialogue between the Human Rights Committee and the government delegation is supposed to look at during the country review process and helps to explain why the U.S. civil society delegation was spurred on to engage in that powerful protest on October 18.

How the treaty reporting procedure and constructive dialogue is supposed to happen

Once countries (“State parties”) have ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (the “ICCPR”), then the country is subject to periodic reviews by the Human Rights Committee of its compliance with the treaty. The Committee begins the reporting process (under its Article 40 of the ICCPR obligations) by first composing the Country Report Task Force, composed of 4-5 members of the Committee who will lead and direct the periodic reporting process, and a country rapporteur who is the person leading the drafting of the list of issues and coordinating different procedures throughout the reporting process (with the Human Rights Committee Secretariat’s support), including organizing the substantive contribution of Committee members in the reporting process.

Generally, the review consists of four steps: (1) submission of State party initial or periodic report; (2) constructive dialogue between the State party and the Committee, which includes in-person meetings in Geneva with government delegates and civil society; (3) the Committee issuing Concluding Observations; and (4) follow-up to those Concluding Observations.

The Committee’s examination of State party reports is pursuant to Rule 68 of its Rules of Procedure. These reports must be based on the list of issues created and shared by the Committee with the State party.  That list of issues helps frame the scope of the review, including for the purposes of the constructive dialogue.

The United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 68/268 (Apr. 2014) and encouraged collaboration between treaty bodies to create an aligned methodology to be used in constructive dialogue with State parties. The aim of this methodology is to make the dialogue more effective and productive, as well as to maximize the available time for productive dialogue. (Res. 68/268, at para. 5) Additionally, it asked that the Committee, and other treaty bodies, “adopt short, focused and concrete concluding observations…that reflect the dialogue with the relevant State party.” (Res. 68/268, at para. 6). Moreover, during the in-person review in Geneva, the country is inv​​ited to bring a delegation with representatives from different bodies, agencies, and entities that may respond to questions posed by the Committee.

The purpose of this constructive dialogue is to elicit an effective process in which the Committee analyzes and reviews human rights developments in the State Party under a specific treaty. In general, the face-to-face dialogue follows the same broad structure for all treaty bodies: (a) the State party is invited to send a delegation to attend the meetings at which the committee will consider the report of the State party; (b) the head of the delegation, usually a representative of the Government of the State in question, is invited to make a brief opening statement; (c) members of the Committee, in some cases led by the country rapporteur(s) or country task force, pose questions on specific aspects of the report of particular interest or concern; and (d) the State party delegation responds to those questions.

An initial review requires a comprehensive assessment by the Committee of the enjoyment by all of the rights in the ICCPR concerned and the related compliance by the State party. A periodic report is more focused on previous recommendations made by the Committee. In practice, however, and with some degree of variation between the different treaty bodies, the difference between the dialogue concerning an initial report and a periodic report is minimal.

The formal review, in person in Geneva, then takes place over two consecutive working days with a three-hour session on each day. These public sessions are usually attended by UN observers, civil society representatives, which may include directly impacted persons, and a National Human Rights Institute (“NHRI”) if the State Party has one. However, the U.S. does not have an NHRI. An NHRI’s purpose is to promote and safeguard human rights domestically. It is an independent, non-governmental entity that establishes productive relationships with the government and with non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”). Some key functions of NHRIs include providing advice to the government, monitoring human rights within the State and within its actions, and engaging with the broader international human rights community. NHRIs are regulated by the 1993 Paris Principles which establishes responsibilities, composition, and operating methods.

While the Biden Administration has “centered” human rights in the execution of U.S. foreign policy, it has not established an NHRI. The lack of a U.S. NHRI was a question posed by Committee member Soh during the first day of the review in October 2023. The U.S. delegation response follows a long trend of the U.S. abstaining from “mainstream international human rights standards.”

An NHRI may help facilitate the work of a National Mechanism for Reporting and Follow-up (“NMRF”).   The NMRF is supposed to coordinate and prepare reports on a country’s human rights developments. It is also supposed to engage with regional and international human rights mechanisms to track and follow-up with domestic implementation of treaty obligations. The NMRF performs its duties by consulting with the NHRI and with civil society organizations to ensure its approach is comprehensive in safeguarding human rights.

A lack of both an NHRI and a NMRF hinders the U.S.’s ability to consistently and timely report to the Committee, and such hindrance affects the promotion and enjoyment of human rights across the nation. A lack of both an NHRI and a NMRF also hindered the constructive dialogue between the Committee and the government delegation during the 2023 U.S. Review.

U.N. Human Rights Committee Offers Critical Recommendations for Transgender Rights in the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Nic Stelter, Student Fellow & Tamar Ezer, Acting Director Human Rights Clinic, University of Miami School of Law

As we mark the end of Transgender Awareness Month, the United States needs to take a hard look at rampant discrimination against transgender communities. Since 2019, laws violating transgender rights have swept the country:

• 14 states limit discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in schools and prohibit the use of transgender students’ names and pronouns.
• In 9 states, transgender individuals are prohibited from using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity in schools, as well other public spaces in some cases.
• 22 states ban at least some forms of gender-affirming health care for children, and 5 of these states punish gender-affirming care as a felony.
• In 23 states, transgender students are banned from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity.
• We’ve seen book bans double with 45.5% of books targeted written by or about LGBTQ+ individuals.

Moreover, lawmakers have introduced over 500 more bills limiting transgender rights in just the last year.

Our Human Rights Clinic had the opportunity to support a coalition, including Human Rights Watch, Equality Florida, Florida Health Justice Project, Southern Legal Counsel, and Southern Poverty Law Center in advocacy before the United Nations (U.N.) Human Rights Committee, as it reviewed the U.S. for compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This included submission of a shadow report on human rights violations against transgender communities, development of a factsheet, and oral presentations to the Committee.

Earlier this month, the Human Rights Committee released its Concluding Observations and underscored with concern “the increase of state legislation that severely restricts the rights of persons based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Additionally, it pointed to hate crimes and prevalent discrimination in access to housing, employment, and other services. The Committee found violations of the rights to equality and non-discrimination; freedom of expression; privacy; family; life; and freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

To prevent these abuses, the Human Rights Committee urged the U.S. to “adopt all measures necessary to ensure that state laws that discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity are repealed and that comprehensive legislative initiatives prohibiting discrimination on those grounds . . . are adopted at the federal, state, local and territorial levels.” The Committee further called on the U.S. to investigate harassment and violence against transgender individuals and make sure that “perpetrators are brought to justice and victims are provided with effective remedies and redress.”

It is time for the U.S. to heed the Committee’s recommendations. Its findings, as Human Rights Watch noted, are “a wake-up call for state and federal lawmakers.” As one of our partners, a former teacher and transgender resident of Florida, poignantly stated, “Trans people are humans too and deserve to live in this country.” Let’s make the U.S a place where everyone can live with dignity. We hope the Concluding Observations can serve as a tool in pushing this forward.

New Article: A Global View of U.S. Backsliding on Democracy and Reproductive Rights

Martha F. Davis and Risa Kaufman, A Global View of U.S. Backsliding on Democracy and Reproductive Rights, ACS Blogs, Expert Forum (Nov. 13, 2023). Excerpt below.

This month, the United Nations Human Rights Committee concluded its review of the United States’ human rights record. Nine years had passed since the Committee’s last review of the U.S. With many urgent issues to address – including gun violence, excessive use of force by law enforcement, climate change, and Guantanamo – the Committee trained particular focus on the state of reproductive rights and democracy in the United States. The Committee’s alarm over the flood of restrictions on reproductive and bodily autonomy, alongside its deep concern over attacks on the right to vote, points to the deep connections between reproductive rights and democracy. Americans have a front row view of these connections in the wake of the Supreme Court majority’s decision in Dobbs to eliminate federal constitutional protections for abortion and leave the issue up to the political branches and the states. The global perspective offered by the UN review is a reminder, however, that regression on reproductive rights reinforces and supports erosion of democracy. These are mutually reinforcing trends. And the UN review underscores the urgency of safeguarding both.

U.S. failure to meaningfully consult with civil society during the 2023 ICCPR review

By Sarah Dávila A. and Lauren E. Bartlett 

“What do we want - DIGNITY; When do we want it - NOW; And if we don’t get it - SHUT IT DOWN”

    On Monday Oct. 16, 2023, over thirty people from U.S. civil society organizations held a protest in the streets of Geneva, Switzerland. This unusual event came out of years of frustration with the U.S. government’s refusal to meaningfully consult with U.S. civil society ahead of and during U.S. human rights reviews in Geneva. Some protesters silently walked out of a meeting at the U.S. Mission. Those protesters then joined a larger group waiting outside with posters, lots of energy, and most importantly demanding to be heard while marching in front of the headquarters of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, chanting together (see protest calls above and at the end of this post below). Then again, today on Oct. 18, 2023, U.S. civil society protested the lack of meaningful participation by the U.S. government relating to its review of the ICCPR, by turning their backs after the review had concluded.

    This week marks the Fifth Periodic Review of the United States’ compliance with its duties and obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). During its review of the United States, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Human Rights Committee), a treaty body made up of independent human rights independent experts, will monitor U.S. compliance with the ICCPR.  

    The Human Rights Committee has four monitoring functions, in its supervision and monitoring of the implementation of the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee: (1) receives and examines reports from State parties on their progress in upholding the treaty; (2) provides general comments, interpreting the ICCPR; (3) receives and considers individual complaints (“communications”); and (4) considers inter-state complaints relating to state failure to upload ICCPR obligations.

    During this 139th Session, the Human Rights Committee had the opportunity to ask questions of the U.S. government and will provide recommendations (“concluding observations”) for measures to be taken at the federal, state, and local levels to advance and protect human rights under the treaty).

    The Human Rights Committee questioned U.S. officials about their laws and practices, but also heard, both formally and informally, from civil society (non-profits, directly impacted individuals, advocates engaging with communities in the U.S., law professors and law students, among others) about the United States’ compliance with the ICCPR. These interventions by civil society are very important to the treaty body’s work; by helping shape the questions that must be asked of the United States given the reality of human rights on the ground. Civil society interventions will also help inform the Human Rights Committee’s recommendations on the United States which will be issued on Nov. 3, 2023. In turn, civil society will use the recommendations issued by the Committee in advocacy work in the United States.

    U.S. civil society participation in U.S. human rights treaty body reviews has been historically very high, especially compared with other countries who participate in reviews. In fact, this week there were more than 140 people from U.S. civil society organizations in Geneva.  Civil society should have an opportunity to participate in this review process through real and meaningful consultation with the U.S. government as well as  submit public reports based on the list of issues provided by the Human Rights Committee. The reports covered a variety of very pressing issues, including human rights violations in relation to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, legal status, and socioeconomic problems. Those reports provided very concrete recommendations for the U.S. government on how to take action and actually protect human rights under the ICCPR. 

    Meaningful participation is critical in treaty-based reviews of country obligations under treaties, such as the ICCPR. As a human right, all persons have the right to freely participate in public affairs, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the ICCPR. The right to participation is critical to the advancement of all human rights because it promotes democracy, the rule of law, social inclusion, economic development, and overall visibility and the ability to be heard by government official. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25 provides that individuals have the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including the formulation and implementation of policy at the international and regional levels.

    Effective participation must be a process that includes a variety of stakeholders, including State and non-State actors, private entities, civil society, and affected populations.  Special attention must be given to the effective participation of women, gender-minorities, indigenous peoples, and other disenfranchised and vulnerable populations whose voices have not been heard and who have been historically excluded from participatory processes.

    While the current administration has held consultations, they have fallen short of providing specific implementation measures to comply with the ICCPR and the consultation process itself, which requires meaningful participation. Moreover, those consultations were held with little to no government interaction or response. Additionally, U.S. government officials invited a limited number of people (approx. 50% of civil society attending the review in Geneva), to the U.S. Mission for a consultation and reception, ignoring calls by civil society for a location that would accommodate all civil society members interested in attending. During that meeting, as with previous consultation processes earlier in the decade, government officials have routinely used pre-written statements not responsive to civil society interventions, thus reflecting the true nature and superficiality of the consultation process to date.

    Just last year when the United States’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was reviewed in July 2022, the U.S. similarly engaged very superficially without engaging meaningfully with civil society. The United States is not doing enough to meaningfully consult with civil society during human rights treaty body reviews and the protest on Monday and today are a direct result of the frustration and anger felt by civil society after being ignored once again by the U.S. while being reviewed by the Human Rights Committee this week in Geneva.

“Derechos humanos por eso aqui estamos.”

The UN Human Rights Committee Will Review the U.S. Next Month. Why Not Engage with the Committee on the Abolition of Immigration Detention of Children? – Part II

By Lauren E. Bartlett

Prof. Bartlett writes this second of a two-part post on the U.N. Human Rights Committee’s upcoming review of the United States during the week of October 16^th.

For over a decade, international human rights mechanisms have been calling for a complete prohibition on the detention of migrant children, with or without their families, based solely on migration status. There is a consensus in international human rights law that any deprivation of liberty of children based solely on migration status, no matter how brief, is a violation of human rights law and may amount to ill-treatment. In 2012, the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that the detention of children based on their migration status or their parents’ migration status is a clear human rights violation. In 2015, Juan Mendez, the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stated that “States should, expeditiously and completely, cease the detention of children, with or without their parents, on the basis of their immigration status.” Both Juan Mendez and his successor, Nils Melzer, agree that the detention of migrant children based solely on migration status is never in the best interests of the child, as it “exceeds the requirement of necessity and proportionality and, even in case of short-term detention, may amount to ill-treatment.” The European Court of Human Rights has noted that the best interests of the child must be determined on an individual basis in assessing the possibility to admit, return, expel, deport, repatriate, reject at the border.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants dedicated his 2020 thematic report to ending the immigration detention of children. In that report he stated that the “human rights of children have neither nationality nor borders.” The child’s right to non-discrimination includes the protection of children against all forms of discrimination and punishment, “including specifically on the basis of the status of the child and his or her parents or family members.” The Special Rapporteur on migrants also stated that the “imperative requirement not to deprive the child of liberty extends to the child’s parents and requires the authorities to provide alternative measures to detention for the entire family.” Clearly U.S. practices of depriving children of their liberty, without access to adequate food, healthcare, or education, separated from their family members, for prolonged periods of time in hieleras, solely based on their migration status, is a violation of international human rights law.

U.S. Should Explore a Path Towards the Abolition of Immigration Detention for Children

The United States is closer than many may think to abolishing the immigration detention of children. The Biden Administration has officially halted the practice of caging children at the border since 2021, instead releasing migrant children and their families into the United States with ankle bracelets or traceable cellphones to keep track of them. The U.S. government has recognized that the harms perpetrated on children are severe and long-lasting, and though the United States has not outlawed the practice, U.S. law already provides for limits on immigration detention of children and minimum standards of detention conditions.

Moreover, and despite American exceptionalism, the United States does regularly avail itself to the expertise and guidance of human rights mechanisms. For example, the United States rejoined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the United States attends and participates in treaty body reviews, the Universal Periodic Review, Inter-American Commission hearings, and official visits from human rights experts.

If President Biden hopes to stick to his commitment of avoiding the detention of migrant children at all costs, he will need help. Instead of making excuses, the U.S. government should take advantage of the expert guidance that can be provided by international human rights mechanisms, including by the U.N. Human Rights Committee during its review of the United States in October 2023. Compliance with recommendations made by international human rights mechanisms is voluntary and relatively little domestic attention is given to U.S. engagement with these mechanisms. The expertise and guidance that international human rights mechanisms can provide on this subject is unparalleled.

Abolition of immigration detention of children is the right thing to do and in line with U.S. international human rights obligations; the United States can start down the path of dismantling its racist, oppressive, and violent immigration system and prevent future long-term harm to the hundreds of thousands of migrant children each year.

The UN Human Rights Committee Will Review the U.S. Next Month. Why Not Engage with the Committee on the Abolition of Immigration Detention of Children? – Part I

By Lauren E. Bartlett

Prof. Bartlett writes this two-part post on the U.N. Human Rights Committee’s upcoming review of the United States during the week of October 16^th.

The U.S. human rights record will be on full display next month when the U.N. Human Rights Committee finally gets to review the Fifth Periodic Report submitted by the United States during the final days of the Trump administration in January 2021. Some important federal immigration policies have changed for the better under the Biden administration, including a halt, however temporary it might be, on the inhumane practice of detaining migrant children and their families in cages at the border. However, the U.S. report does not reflect those changes despite calls by human rights advocates for updates and it is unlikely that the topic of the abolition of immigration detention of children will be given much play during the review.

If the Biden administration is serious about forging a path towards the abolition of immigration detention of children, it should at the very least engage on the topic with international human rights mechanisms, including during the upcoming review of the United States by the U.N. Human Rights Committee. This is a relatively low stakes step that the U.S. government can take towards abolition.

Migrant Children Detained at the U.S. Border

Detaining children in cages even for short periods of time is traumatic and has negative long-lasting impacts on child health and well-being. While some countries around the globe have outlawed the detention of children based solely on migration status, U.S. law allows officials to put children in cages at the border for up to twenty days and that time limit is rarely enforced.

Until just a year and a half ago, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of migrant children in cages each year. Out of nearly 2 million people detained by the United States at the border from February 2017 through June 2021, more than 650,000 were children. Children detained at the border were held in cages that were built decades ago, at a time when most detained migrants were adult men who were held briefly and rapidly deported. Migrant children were detained in wire cages or tents and then were later moved to larger cinder block cells. The children reported that the food was spoiled and made them sick. Kids with injuries, fevers, coughs or stomachaches could not get basic medical care. Children were held for weeks in the same wet and filthy clothes after journeying thousands of miles and crossing the Rio Grande river. Children also reported bone-chilling cold from the air-conditioned cinder block cells, which are known across the border as hieleras, meaning iceboxes in Spanish.

There are many excuses used by the U.S. government for putting migrant children in cages. These excuses include security and terrorism, deterrence, risk of absconding, public health, and ensuring the child’s well-being. However, detention is never in a child’s best interest and the ill-treatment endured by child migrants means these excuses fall short of justifying these practices. Moreover, many of the detained migrant children, up to forty-six percent or more, had valid asylum claims and require protection as refugees under international law.

At least for the time being, the U.S. government no longer puts migrant children in cages. Today, migrant children with their families at the border must wait near the border for their turn to use the mobile app called CBP One. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is allowing roughly 40,000 migrants per month to make appointments through the CPB one app, with more than 100,000 migrants waiting to use the app at any given time. If a family receives an appointment and their asylum claims are processed by the Border Patrol, they are supposed to be briefly processed by the Border Patrol and then released into the United States with their movements tracked through a GPS monitoring device, such as ankle bracelets or traceable cellphone.

Unaccompanied children at the border detained by Border Patrol are now supposed to be immediately transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The ORR places unaccompanied children in shelters and then with sponsors, usually family members, as they await immigration proceedings. Though the ORR has used large temporary facilities to detain unaccompanied children at the border in the past, which resemble the Border Patrol cages and hieleras, no migrant children have been held in such a temporary facility since 2022 according to the ORR’s website.

While current practices regarding migrant children at the border do not officially involve cages, there are ongoing worries about conditions in the CBP and ORR facilities. In addition, there is a strong argument that GPS monitoring is just another form of oppressive and racialized violence perpetuated against migrants. The bottom line is that no inhumane, cruel or tortuous practices should be perpetuated by the U.S. government against migrant children.

Realizing the Rights to Food, Health, and Housing

By Tamar Ezer, Acting Director & Denisse Córdova Montes, Acting Associate Director Human Rights Clinic of the University of Miami School of Law

Please find resources and a synopsis report from a National Strategy Meeting on Realizing the Rights to Food, Health, and Housing in the U.S., hosted by the University of Miami School of Law’s Human Rights Clinic and the Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights. 

The first half of the meeting consisted of short topical panels on the rights to food, health, and housing. Advocates from each of these fields shared strategies, lessons, achievements, and challenges and set the scene for the second half of the meeting, which focused on cross-cutting issues and opportunities for future collaboration. Potential joint initiatives identified included exchanging legal tools and models for transformation, shifting narratives from individual responsibility to structural causes and away from a scarcity mentality, disrupting our current system through direct action and political education, and challenging corporate power and the financialization of basic services. With regards to the last point on the privatization of basic services, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights just released a compendium, collecting the statements of United Nations (UN) treaty bodies on private actors’ involvement in health care, as a tool for advocates.

The meeting concluded with a panel discussion on the documentary film, PUSH, which investigates the increasing unaffordability of housing in cities around the world. The film features Leilani Farha, the former UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing and Global Director of The Shift, launched with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and United Cities and Local Governments to secure the right to adequate housing.

The Strategy Meeting has already inspired some action. Advocates in West Virginia and Washington, excited by efforts in Maine to enshrine the right to food in the state constitution, introduced their own right to food legislative efforts. To find out more about this growing movement, please see a recent article by Michael Fakhri, current UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

23 UN Human Rights Experts Issue Statement on Policing and Systemic Racism in the US

On Friday February 26, 2021, 23 UN human rights experts issued a very strong statement on policing and systemic racism in the United States. The statement calls out police use of excessive force against protesters, highlighting the Philadelphia Police Department’s violent crackdown on Black Lives Matter protesters last June. The statement is also the first time international human rights experts have echoed the Black Lives Matter Movement and allied groups in calling to shift resources from police departments to social and economic resources to support communities of color.

This is also very significant because the last time the UN addressed the issue there was outrage after the UN Human Rights Council watered down a resolution on police brutality and racism after George Floyd's murder, removing the language condemning the US and calling for an investigation. 

This statement would not have been possible but for the incredible advocacy of Professors Rachel Lopez and Lauren Katz Smith and their students at Drexel's Kline School of Law, as well as the ACLU of Pennsylvania. 

New Teaching Guides Available from Cardozo Addressing Structural Violence

Editors' Note:  With welcomed timing, Cardozo introduces Human Rights Teaching Guides.

Cardozo Law Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights (CLIHHR) launched Confronting Structural Violence: Law Teaching Guides to provide open-access teaching resources for professors.

Law faculty in a range of disciplines can download and immediately use any of the 10 open-access Law Teaching Guides, which are grounded in cases many professors already teach and cover topics that are currently making headlines. The Law Teaching Guides, which cover constitutional law, international law, criminal law, corporations, and IP, are a flexible resource professors can easily adapt for introductory survey courses or upper-level seminars. Please feel free to take a look and share with any law faculty who may find the Guides useful.

To download the Guides and for more information about the project, visit: go.yu.edu/cardozo/lawteachingguides

To read more about the project’s goals from Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, CLIHHR’s Faculty Director and Associate Professor of Clinical Law at Cardozo, find a Q&A with Professor Kestenbaum here.

 

Remembering Richard Zorza

Richard Zorza passed away on April 13th.  For those of you who did not have the pleasure of knowing him, Richard was an amazing and brilliant thinker and social justice leader whose career was formed around access to justice.   A Harvard Law School graduate, Richard, and Joan Zorza each engaged in public interest legal work throughout their careers.  Joan became a respected domestic violence researcher and practitioner.  Richard spent his early career as a public defender and then began a journey to introduce courts and others to how technology could be used to assist the self-represented and how courts can better manage cases involving the self-represented.  One of Richard's most significant contributions was his writing and training on judicial neutrality.  Richard explained that judicial neutrality was not achieved by the court's failure to inquire of pro se litigants,  Rather, Richard theorized, judicial neutrality is best achieved when judicial inquiry is employed to determine the facts of a matter so that the court may make an informed decision.  "  As Richard alerted the judicial system " The appearance of judicial neutrality has caused us improperly to equate judicial engagement with judicial non-neutrality, and therefore to resist the forms of judicial engagement that are in fact required to guarantee true neutrality."  Richard's contribution to the ethics of "judicial neutrality" and the proper way to achieve neutrality were groundbreaking and continue to influence judicial thought on cases with the self-represented.  His article The Disconnect Between the Requirements of Judicial Neutrality and Those of the Appearance of Neutrality when Parties Appear Pro Se: Causes, Solutions, Recommendations, and Implications was published in 2004.

Richard's most recent contribution to self-represented literature is Five New Broad Ideas to Cut Through the Access to Justice-Commercialization-Deregulation Conundrum published in 2016.  

The Legal Services Corporation recently honored Richard with a resolution  recognizing his contributions to US legal development.

"Richard has devoted his professional life to improving access to justice in America, particularly for those who cannot afford to pay for counsel. He has worked as a public defender, a legal services attorney and a justice technology designer. Richard was the founder of the Self Represented Litigation Network and served as the coordinator of the Network at its inception and later on its executive committee. The Network has played an indispensable role in bringing together courts, bar associations and access to justice organizations in support of innovation in services for the self-represented. The National Conference of Chief Justices and National Conference of State Court Administrators have described Richard “as the foremost ambassador and crusader for the cause of self-represented litigants in the United States” and as a leader whose “service has been marked by exceptional accomplishments which have benefited innumerable litigants and courts throughout the nation.”

The New Year of Hope

Like most, I am pleased to say goodbye to 2018.  Although after reflecting, I see the many benefits from the year just gone.  

While shocked on a near-daily basis at the disrespect spewing from the White House and Congress, this was also a year of mobilization.  Demonstrations supported women, refugees, children and families, the environment and other concerns about US policies as well as the survival of the republic.  Human rights appear to be in decline within our borders, however the opportunity to discuss human rights law and universal human rights has never had a broader US audience.  Many who are stunned by the disrespectful culture had not been familiar with the human rights framework.   For many, what had been intuited as inappropriate and inhumane behavior now is understood as a deprivation of human rights.

2018 saw the #MeToo and Times Up movements thrive, bringing results with it.  The movement to eliminate confidential settlement agreements, the convictions of Larry Nassar and Bill Cosby, along with the arrest of Harvey Weinstein were shocking only in their novelty.  CEOs and other business leaders are being dethroned.  Women supporting women made the difference.

Black Lives Matter is widely supported and the focus of public action as well as long overdue examination of the civil and criminal justice systems.

A new and diverse Democratic cohort was elected and will assume their congressional roles.

Much remains to be done.  Men and women of color continue to be harmed by police in disproportionate rates, to the extent that few conclusions can be drawn other the targeting and bias toward brown and black people.   Women and the sexually different experience higher rates of violence than men.  Men experience high rates of gang violence. Children are separated from their parents at borders as well as through our civil and criminal systems that fail to honor the bonding of children with their parents.  Congress needs to determine whether it will promote democracy by reining in a cruel president.  

2018 was a year of adjustment.  For the first time there was widespread discussion whether our democracy will or can survive.  Behavior we considered unthinkable in a president shocked us, along with the impact of inhumane policies.  Now we know what to expect.  Any denial of the fragility of our democracy has been dispelled.

And we survived.  We are more settled, more focused.    2019 will bring new strategies and activism.  Hope abounds. I for one look forward to the New Year, not only because it marks the end of a difficult 2018, but because we have seen successes in human rights advocacy and more successes are on their way.

 

 

Books, Prison and Protest: A Critical Human Rights Win

Having just completed my first Inside Out program with our local women's jail, I witnessed first hand the transformation that occurs when those who have been deprived of adequate education begin their journey to learning.  A 2013 RAND Corporation study affirmed what most suspected.  Education is key to reducing recidivism.  "Our meta-analytic findings provide additional support for the premise that receiving correctional education while incarcerated reduces an individual’s risk of recidivating after release."  The promotion of Inside-Out programs was one topic discussed recently by Pulitzer Prize winning Prof. James Forman at the AALS Clinical Section Conference. Forman is the author of Locking Up Our Own, which looks at the roots of mass incarceration.  Forman advocated for more college education classes in prisons and jails.

Receipt of books by those who are incarcerated is essential for continuation of "inside" self-education. But educational programs are not a priority, particularly for privatized prisons.  Everything from phone calls to Skype visits with children are available only to prisoners who pay.  Shortsighted is the most generous description I can attach to a recently announced policy that prisoners would no longer be able to receive books directly from distributors, except for one approved by the prison.  And those books would come with a 30% mark up.  

Family and friends of incarcerated men and women responded, as well as those inside, as well.  Coleman federal prison in Sumterville, FL was one that announced the new policy and that facility was the topic of advocacy efforts through national listserves and individual inquiry.  Then the policy was rescinded.

To the extent that the policy was a "test", the national grassroots response was sufficient to at least postpone its implementation.  

Adam Foss: Juvenile Justice Warrior

Adam Foss is an amazing advocate for juveniles.  As a Suffolk County (MA) prosecutor, Mr. Foss learned to listen to his young clients and came to understand the reasons why poor, and often brown or black, youths engage in criminal activity.  Interrupting the school to prison pipeline is something he recognizes that all of us can do.  Addressing the fundamental needs of poor boys and girls, such as education and self-esteem, are key.  The difficulty comes in convincing prosecutors to be invested in listening to the juveniles' stories and creating responses that assist them in escaping lives of financial and emotional poverty. Adam Foss' transformative approach to juvenile justice can lead to not only transformation of the juveniles but of the prosecutors, as well.

Mr. Foss' website, prosecutorimpact.com, emphasizes those benefits when prosecutors have a broader vision of how justice is accomplished.  Prosecutors need to embrace a paradigm shift from conviction being considered the only "win".  According to Mr. Foss, a win includes:

                Improved community safety

                Repaired harm of the victims

                Improved long-term community health

                Hold those who commit crimes accountable in ways that increase their chances for success in the community.

The last element gives essential support to the first three. 

Here is link to Mr. Foss' Ted Talk. 

Scholarly Voices: Where Are We As Lawyers One Year Later?

by Margaret Drew

This post is part of our Scholarly Voices series.  We are exploring how our conditions have changed one year after the Trump election. 

The short answer is:  we are better lawyers.  Past generations of lawyers were challenged to find courage in order to continue fearless advocacy.  The McCarthyism of the fifties and the civil rights movement of the sixties and seventies tested lawyers’ commitment to the rule of law.  In the past year, lawyers of our generation are being tested in much the same way.   The difference is that McCarthyism and the brutality with which civil rights demonstrators were met left no room for moral or legal ambiguity. 

The challenges lawyers face today are not as conspicuous as earlier times.  Today’s threats to lawyering and to law are happening more quietly.  In single instances, lawyers are being threatened by the government.  For example, last week US Marine Corp Brigadier General John Baker was placed under house arrest in Guantanamo.  As one report noted:  “His offense was standing up for the rule of law.”

Baker heads the Guantanamo defense counsel and he disbanded a defense team claiming that the team could not ethically represent the defendant because of government surveillance of attorney-client communications.  The judge hearing the trial ordered Baker to reinstate the team, based upon his opinion that Baker had no authority to take the action he did.  After Baker refused to do so and refused to testify, he was sentenced to 21 days house arrest.  Before a federal court could act on a habeas petition on Baker’s behalf, the Guantanamo judge released Baker. Courage comes in many forms.  This time it came from a military lawyer.

Since last November, lawyers and judges have been on the frontlines of protecting due process and other fundamental rights.  Lawyers and law students responded en mass to represent those affected by the travel bans.  Other lawyers responded to appeals, whether through direct representation or filing amicus briefs. Judges courageously stayed the travel ban and other executive orders.  What remains to be seen is what role SCOTUS will play in efforts to preserving constitutional protections. 

Surely, there is more to come.  But we are ready.  An unintended consequence of the election: lawyer mobilization. 

The Real Work (and Why We Do It)

 Prof. Carolyn Grose shares this post with us from her blog.

Saturday was Yom Kippur. I am not an observant Jew – grandchild of Russian Jewish immigrants, yes, but raised in a highly assimilated and non-religious New York family. But this time of year coinciding as it does with the turning of leaves and the shortening of days always grounds me in the spiritual underpinnings of the work of Resistance.

My favorite Resistance Rabbi – Michael Adam Latz – described the Day of Atonement this year as a day of “Open broken hearted souls joining together in song and prayer, in tears and in repentance, in the work of forgiveness and the work of breathing a new world into being.” He prayed that the day of reflection “take you soaring to new spiritual heights, your engagement with t'shuvah [repentance] turn your lives in a more holy direction, your forgiveness flow like a mighty stream, your commitment to justice and human dignity consume your waking hours.” https://www.facebook.com/michaeladamlatz.

I first started my blog as a way to keep breathing in the early months of the Trump administration. It helped, as I joined other anxious white women like Rebecca Solnit  and Amy Siskind and Jennifer Hofmann who are determined that this not become a normal, if slightly worse, bad Republican administration. We keep track, we monitor, we call out, we center, all in the name of #Resistance – to Trump and all he has ushered in.

But as the months wore on and it looked like we were not going to get a do-over or early impeachment, as the republican leadership seemed determined to stand by their man, I realized I needed to pace myself. And to remind myself of the real work of #Resistance. This isn’t a tennis game, or a brilliant, if not quite believable, spy novel. This is the country that I live in, a country that has been riven by strife and cruelty and selfishness since its founding. Rabbi Latz is not the only spiritual leader to remind us why we do this work. No. It is, after all, “the real work of Christmas”:

“to find the lost,

to heal the broken,

to feed the hungry,

to release the prisoner,

to rebuild the nations,

to bring peace among the people,

to make music in the heart.”

And it is the work of my Buddhist chaplain sister, Kim Moore, as she brings her practice to men and women in the cells of San Quentin and Soledad prisons. Over 500 prisoners have participated in an intensive year-long training in mindfulness, emotional intelligence and understanding violence, its roots, and its victim impact. In response to the work Kim and her colleagues are doing, one of the prisoners said, “You are speaking to us as if we were human beings again. No one has come in here and addressed us like that before.”

I will write more about last week’s class on gender and Philando Castile and how as critical lawyers and resisters we have to keep keeping track, monitoring, calling out and centering, in the name of #Resistance. For today, though, it seemed important to remember why we choose every day to put our race, gender, class, privilege goggles on and force ourselves to look through them at the jagged shards of misery all around us. For me, while I am inspired by the words of the Bible and the teachings of Buddhism, I find the comfort and strength to keep at it from the actions and words of our living prophets – of all faiths and traditions. My fellow resisters, I count you among those prophets and thank you for walking this path with me.

Building A Justice System for All

John Pollock of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel recently informed members that results of a national survey conducted by Lake Research Partners and ASO Communications on access to the civil justice system were available.  The research results were reported by Voices for Civil Justice, and included a finding that most responders believe that access to the civil justice system is a right, not a privilege.  This finding reflects a significant advance for human rights perception within the US.

Highlights of the findings are:

• 84 percent of voters believe it is important for our democracy to ensure everyone has access to the civil justice system – an enormous level of support, indicating this is a core value on which to build support for civil justice reform and civil legal aid.
• 82 percent of voters agree that “equal justice under the law is a right, not a privilege.” Again, this level of support signifies a core value and an opportunity.
• Voters believe low-income individuals – especially those living in rural areas – and people struggling to make ends meet, face the most difficulty in obtaining legal help.
• Voters strongly favor reform of the civil justice system, with half saying it needs to be rebuilt completely or fundamentally changed.
• Strong majorities of voters support increasing state funding to build a more accessible civil justice system, and surprisingly that support remains robust even when tied to the notion of raising taxes to do so.
• Voters overwhelmingly support the most traditional and familiar form of service to ensure access to the civil justice system – namely, having a lawyer. They also strongly support a wide range of services that comprise a holistic approach to ensuring justice for all.

The full report, Building a Civil Justice System that Delivers Justice for All, may be read here.  You may listen to the primary researchers, Celinda Lake and Anat Shenker-Osorio announcing the results here.

 

 

Recognizing Animal Rights

The animal welfare and animal rights movement in the US has accelerated during the past two decades.  But the US is not close to expanding legal rights to animals as has been done elsewhere.

In 2008, the Spanish parliament extended rights to chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos.  This animal measure was not the first for members of the European Union.  In 2002, Germany extended rights to animals through its constitution. In 1999, New Zealand passed measures granting protective rights for apes.  While some argue that legal rights should not be limited to human-like species, there is no question that these measures are light years ahead of any US initiatives.

Most of the US protections of animals comes from a perspective of correcting cruel human behaviors toward them.  Statutes reflect the intention to restrain human actions toward animals, but they do not reflect the perspective that, like humans, animals have inalienable rights.  Struggling to preserve the rights that we have, it is unlikely that rights for humans will expand during the next few years.  Any movement to recognize, on a formal basis, inherent rights of animals is not likely to be successful in the near future. 

In a 2014 essay, William Shultz, former director of the ACLU, acknowledged that he was wrong when he earlier argued that "no rational person would believe that animals could claim the same kinds of rights as humans."  He called upon us to examine which creatures should have a claim to rights.

Given the current lack of understanding of human rights on the federal level, animal rights advocates, like human rights advocates, will continue to be most effective on the international and local levels.

At the recent G-20 meeting, for example, the leaders adopted  "High Level Principles on Combatting Corruption Related to Illegal Trade in Wildlife and Wildlife Products".  While again the principals seek to protect animals from human cruelties, continued recognition of their need for protection may lead to the dialogue on whether protective action is at the same time acknowledging innate legal rights of animals.