1.

Press release

Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme (FIDH)
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)
Ligue française des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (LDH)

OPEN LETTER TO THE FRENCH MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN THE RUMSFELD TORTURE CASE

** Human Rights Groups Say There Is No Immunity for Torture -- The Case against Donald Rumsfeld Must Be Opened **

May 21, 2008

http://www.fidh.org/spip.php?article5522

PARIS -- The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), its member organizations in the United States, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and in France, the Ligue française des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (LDH), as well as the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), today sent an open letter to France's Minister of Justice, Madame Rachida Dati. In it, the organizations request that she intervene with the Public Prosecutor of the Paris Appeals Court and ask him to withdraw his decision of February 27, 2008, granting former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld immunity from criminal jurisdiction for acts of torture. The letter was also sent to Mr. Bernard Kouchner, France's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On October 25, 2007, the plaintiff organizations filed a complaint before the Paris District Prosecutor against Rumsfeld on the occasion of a private visit in Paris. The complaint alleged that Rumsfeld, in violation of the Convention against Torture, ratified by France and implemented in French legislation, is responsible for having directly and personally crafted and ordered the use of "harsh" interrogation techniques constituting torture. The complaint, accompanied by several hundred pages of evidence, also alleges that such techniques were implemented under his supervision, notably at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, and that, starting in 2002, Rumsfeld personally managed several torture sessions of terrorist suspects.

The Paris Prosecutor dismissed the complaint and granted Rumsfeld immunity, purportedly basing his decision on an opinion drafted by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The plaintiffs had, without success, contested the dismissal of the complaint before the Public Prosecutor, a higher authority.

The open letter addressed to Justice Minister Dati demonstrates in particular that the prosecutors' opinion fails to articulate any valid legal justification for the personal immunity of Rumsfeld, a former Secretary of Defense; that it ignores the principle that there is no immunity for international core crimes such as torture ['pour des crimes internationaux aussi graves que la torture']; and alleges that by granting immunity to former officials for such crimes, the decision contravenes the very purpose of the French legislation implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture.

The letter states that in his decision, the Public Prosecutor referred to -- and misinterpreted -- the International Court of Justice's 2002 "Yerodia Case," which recognized the immunity of a Minister of Foreign Affairs and only for his time in office. Yet, Rumsfeld is a former Secretary of Defense, who was on a private visit in France.

When asked to explain how the current position could be reconciled with the Paris Prosecutor's previous request for the extradition of former President Augusto Pinochet, the Public Prosecutor replied, incredibly, that the allegation of torture against Rumsfeld could not be "dissociated from his official function," in contrast to the case for Pinochet, who was accused of serious crimes like murder and kidnapping.

But as the signatories state in the letter, under French and international law, "it is well-established that personal immunity of former officials only extends to 'official acts' accomplished while in office, and not to international crimes, which cannot be seriously considered official acts."

The letter to Madame Rachida Dati further states that this unsupported extension of immunity "could confer permanent impunity from prosecution for international crimes not only to Heads of State and Foreign Ministers, but, by extension, to all government ministers both during and after their term of office."

It is "to avoid an application *à la carte* of the fight against impunity" that the plaintiffs organizations have chosen now to refer the matter to France's Minister.

******************************
David Lerner, President
Riptide Communications, Inc.
Suite 1300
270 Lafayette Street
New York, New York 10012
(212) 260-5000
www.riptideonline.com
********************************

2.

[Original]

IL N'EXISTE PAS D'IMMUNITÉ POUR ACTES DE TORTURE -- LA PROCÉDURE CONTRE DONALD RUMSFELD DOIT SE POURSUIVRE

La Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH), et ses organisations affiliées aux Etats-Unis, le Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), et en France, la Ligue Française des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen (LDH), ainsi que le European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), ont envoyé aujourd’hui une lettre ouverte à la Ministre française de la Justice. La lettre demande à Madame Rachida Dati d’instamment intervenir auprès du Procureur Général près la Cour d’ Appel de Paris afin que soit révisée sa position du 27 février 2008, accordant à l’ancien Secrétaire américain à la Défense, M. Donald Rumsfeld, une immunité de juridiction pénale pour actes de torture. La lettre a également été envoyée à M. Bernard Kouchner, Ministre des Affaires Etrangères.

Le 25 octobre 2007, ces organisations avaient déposé une plainte auprès du Procureur de Paris contre M. Rumsfeld à l’occasion de sa visite privée à Paris. Cette plainte allègue que M. Rumsfeld, en violation de la Convention contre la Torture ratifiée par la France et intégrée en droit français, est responsable d’avoir directement et personnellement élaboré et ordonné le recours à des méthodes d’interrogatoire dites “musclées”, constitutives d’actes de torture. La plainte, accompagnée de centaines de pages de preuves, allègue également que ces techniques ont été mises en œuvre sous sa supervision, notamment à Guantanamo et Abou Ghraib (Irak). Dès 2002, M. Rumsfeld a personnellement organisé en détails plusieurs séances de torture infligées à des personnes soupçonnées d’activités terroristes.

Les organisations plaignantes avaient contesté la décision de classement sans suite du Procureur de la République, qui accordait ainsi une immunité à M. Rumsfeld en se fondant sur une opinion donnée par le Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, auprès du Procureur Général, mais sans succès puisque celui-ci a maintenu cette décision.

La Lettre ouverte adressée à la Ministre de la Justice, Madame Rachida Dati, démontre en particulier que les décisions rendues par les autorités judiciaires du Parquet de Paris ne contiennent aucun point de droit justifiant l’octroi de l’immunité à M. Rumsfeld, en sa qualité d’ancien Secrétaire d’Etat à la Défense, qu’elles méconnaissent le principe selon lequel il n’existe aucune immunité pour des crimes internationaux aussi graves que la torture, et enfin qu’en conférant l’immunité à des anciens hauts dirigeants coupables de tels crimes, elles contredisent directement la législation française qui intègre les dispositions de la Convention contre la Torture.

Dans sa décision, le Procureur Général se réfère au jugement rendu par la Cour Internationale de Justice dans l’affaire Yérodia, en 2002, qui n’a retenu une immunité pour un Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, que pendant l’exercice de ses fonctions. Or, M. Rumsfeld est un ancien Ministre de la Défense qui se rendait en France en visite privée.

Quant à savoir comment la position actuelle pouvait être réconciliée avec la précédente demande du Procureur de Paris d’extrader l’ancien Président Augusto Pinochet, le haut magistrat a prétendu, incroyablement, que les allégations de torture contre M. Rumsfeld “ne sont pas détachables” de ses fonctions officielles, ce qui n’était pas le cas du Général Pinochet, qui était accusé de crimes graves tels que assassinats et enlèvements.

Mais comme le démontrent les signataires, aussi bien en droit français qu’en droit international : « Il est bien établi que l’immunité personnelle des anciens hauts dirigeants ne couvre que les “actes officiels” accomplis alors qu’ils exerçaient leurs fonctions, et non pas l’accomplissement de crimes internationaux dont on ne peut sérieusement considérer qu’ils rentrent dans l’exercice des fonctions officielles. »

La lettre à Madame Rachida Dati poursuit : « L’extension du bénéfice de l’immunité … conduirait à conférer une impunité permanente pour les crimes internationaux, non seulement au profit des Chefs d’Etat et Ministres des Affaires Etrangères, mais par extension à tous les ministres d’un gouvernement, aussi bien pendant la durée de leur mandat qu’après la cessation de leurs fonctions. »

Cette immunité reviendrait à accorder de facto l’impunité aux anciens dirigeants responsables de crimes internationaux, et à ériger le territoire français en havre de paix pour les tortionnaires. Elle n’a pour objet que de privilégier les relations diplomatiques et politiques entre Etats au détriment du droit et de la justice.

C’est « afin d’éviter une application sélective, et pire encore réduite comme une peau de chagrin, de la lutte contre l’impunité » que les organisations plaignantes ont choisi aujourd’hui d’en appeler à Madame la Ministre de la Justice.

3.

For immediate release
April 25, 2008
3:35 PM

CONTACT: Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

***

ACLU AND HRF ASK CIRCUIT COURT TO RECONSIDER RUMSFELD TORTURE CASE

** Precedent Used To Dismiss Case Wrongly Ignores Constitution, Groups Say **

ACLU & Human Rights First
April 25, 2008

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0425-09.htm

WASHINGTON, DC -- The American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First (HRF) today filed an unusual motion in federal court in an effort to overturn the dismissal of a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The March 2005 lawsuit was filed on behalf of nine Iraqi and Afghan former civilian detainees who were tortured while in U.S. military custody and eventually released without being charged with a crime. The lawsuit charged that then-Secretary Rumsfeld was legally responsible for policies and practices leading to the torture and abuse of detainees.

"It is increasingly obvious that responsibility for widespread and systemic abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan lies at the top of the chain of command, but no one has been held accountable," said Lucas Guttentag, ACLU lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "The rule of law and the protections of the Constitution cannot stop at the water’s edge when United States officials adopt policies that violate fundamental rights and core American values."

Today’s motion asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hear the case in the first instance as an “en banc” matter, meaning the entire court would hear the request rather than the standard procedure of assigning the case to a panel of three judges. The motion asks the court to sit “en banc” in order to reconsider its existing decisions that suggest that foreign nationals outside the United States can never bring a claim against government officials for violations of the Constitution.

In March 2007, Chief Judge Thomas A. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the ACLU’s lawsuit even though he described the case as “lamentable” and “appalling” and noted that “the facts alleged in the complaint stand as indictment of the humanity with which the United States treats its detainees.” Still, he concluded that under the governing precedent the case must be dismissed.

Today’s motion argues that the appellate court decisions on which the district court relied are inconsistent with key U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decisions and should be reconsidered by the court of appeals.

“We are asking the court to reconsider its decision. We seek accountability for senior American officials who ordered and allowed torture and cruelty overseas," said Deborah Colson of Human Rights First. “Especially in light of recent revelations about the involvement of high-level officials, reliance on the judicial process is a critical safeguard against abuse of power.”

The original lawsuit charges that the Constitution and international law clearly prohibit torture and require commanders to prevent such actions when they know or should have known of abuses. In addition to direct orders and authorizations, then-Secretary Rumsfeld and other high ranking officials who were named as defendants in the lawsuit knew of the torture and abuse at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan and failed to act. Recently, President Bush admitted to ABC News that he knew his top national security advisers, including Rumsfeld, had discussed and approved specific details of the CIA’s use of torture.

Rear Admiral John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and Brigadier General James Cullen, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeal, are of counsel to HRF. In addition to Guttentag, Colson, Hutson, and Cullen, attorneys on the case are Steven Shapiro, Cecillia Wang, Jennifer Chang, Mónica Ramírez, Omar Jadwat, Amrit Singh, Steven Watt, and Hina Shamsi of the ACLU; Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area; Michael Posner and Sahr Muhammed Ally of Human Rights First; Bill Lann Lee of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson P.C.; Paul Hoffman of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP; David Rudovksy of Kairys, Rudovsky, Epstein & Messing LLP; and Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law.

Today’s motion is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/35034lgl20080425.html

Judge Hogan’s decision is online at: www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/ali_v_rumsfeld_memoorder_granting_motiontodismiss.pdf