RIGHTS: Victims of Dictatorship Begin Quest for Justice

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

MEXICO CITY, May 26 2000 (IPS) - Despite evidence of torture and brutality committed during his eight-year rule in Chad, Hissen Habre has been living the life of a free man in Senegal since his 1990 ouster. But his long flight from justice could end next month if a court in that West African nation rules against him.

On Jun. 15, a three-judge bench of Senegal’s Indicting Chamber is expected to rule on Habre’s appeal to dismiss a case brought against him early this year. Habre’s lawyers have argued that Senegal has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Chad.

For human rights groups, on the other hand, there is sufficient reason to feel sanguine about the forthcoming ruling. “We’re confident that we’re going to win,” asserted Reed Brody, the advocacy director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The case against the former dictator began in February, when a Senegalese prosecutor paved the way for a regional court in the capital Dakar to begin hearing testimony of Chadians victimised during Habre’s rule.

In the criminal complaint, the Chadian Association of Victims of Political Repression and Crime and other human rights groups cited 97 cases of political killings, 142 cases of torture and 100 cases of “disappearance” committed by Habre’s forces during his regime.

The case against Habre, which resulted in him being placed under house arrest, is part of an international effort by human rights groups to go after former dictators for a range of crimes committed during their rule. Such a quest for justice received a fillip when Augusto Pinochet, the former strongman of Chile, was arrested during a visit to London in October 1998 for human rights crimes committed during his 17-year rule.

The British courts, which acted on an arrest warrant brought against Pinochet by a Spanish judge, declared at the time that the former dictator was not entitled to immunity and that he could be extradited to Spain to stand trial.

“The Pinochet case reaffirmed the principles that a country can judge the crime of torture no matter where the acts were committed, and that not even a former head of state has immunity from prosecution,” remarked HRW soon after.

Since then, HRW has made a global appeal to victims of human rights abuses to use the “Pinochet precedent” to press criminal actions against exiled or travelling officials who have committed atrocities.

And the immediate consequence of that has been the case against Habre. The Senegalese action marks a turning point in Africa; never before has an African nation attempted to indict the former head of state of a sister country.

Human rights activists feel that international law is on their side, given the existing principle of “universal jurisdiction” over human rights atrocities. According to an HRW report, “The Pinochet Precedent,” international law makes it clear that under “universal jurisdiction” perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes can “be prosecuted in any country.”

“A principal pragmatic reason why international law provides for universal jurisdiction is to make sure that there is no ‘safe haven’ for those responsible for the most serious crimes,” it argues.

In addition, the United Nations Convention against Torture also gives muscle to this effort. The 1984 convention, which has been ratified by 118 states, has classified torture as a crime that can be dealt with under universal jurisdiction.

According to this convention, torture has been defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for a range of reasons, including obtaining information or a confession, punishing a person for an act committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing a person for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

Furthermore, it specifies that those to be held responsible for torture will include the public official involved or any other person acting in an official capacity.

As regards punishment, the convention calls not only for the torturer to be held accountable, but also for his accomplices in the act.

Consequently, said Waliur Rahman, director of the Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs, the convention makes it easier to charge former dictators for committing crimes against humanity. “The convention against torture (and) the two tribunals in Rwanda and the Hague have signalled to those dictators that crimes committed during their rule cannot go unpunished.”

Nevertheless, the current list of former dictators in exile reveals that many have enjoyed impunity since their exit from power and will probably continue to do so. They include Idi Amin, Milton Obote, Mengistu Haile Miriam, Emmanuel “Toto” Constant, Alfredo Stroessner, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, and Generals Raoul Cedras and Philippe Biamby.

And the countries hosting them range from Saudi Arabia, in the case of Amin, and Zimbabwe, in the case of Mengistu, to the United States, the current home of Constant, and France, where Duvalier resides.

Furthermore, efforts by human rights activists to seek justice in these countries have been stymied. In regard to Amin, for instance, a Saudi ambassador has informed HRW that any attempt to prosecute the former Ugandan dictator would go against Bedouin hospitality, where “once someone is welcomed as a guest in your tent, you do not turn him out.”

Generals Cedras and Biamby were likewise defended by their current hosts, the government of Panama. In November 1999, when HRW urged the Panamanian government to bring charges against the two former strongmen of Haiti, the Panamanian Foreign Ministry declared that “it would be a dangerous precedent to grant the right of asylum to resolve a political problem in a neighbouring country and later deny the rights of those given asylum.”

Such disappointments, however, have not dampened the spirit of those seeking to put the “tyrants on notice” — that their days in freedom are numbered.

“Until recently, it seemed that if you killed one person, you went to jail, but if you slaughtered thousands you usually got away with it. (But now) times have changed,” observed Brody.

And for him, Senegal’s decision to try Habre is indicative of this current shift. “The Pinochet and Habre cases have shown us that nothing is impossible, that where there was impunity there can be justice,” he said.