It has been less than two weeks since our return from Bukavu, DRC, and now Dr. Denis Mukwege and his family have been the targets of armed violence while defending the rights of victims of sexual violence in the region. Dr. Mukwege, Panzi Hospital's administrative, clinical, and spiritual leader, was recently the host of a PHR team committed to supporting advanced training for multidisciplinary professionals in the investigation and documentation of sexual violence.

The courage and vision of our DRC colleagues are beyond most Americans' comprehension. Daily, the doctors, nurses, police, judges, and prosecutors face victims who have been raped, injured, and tortured. With minimal resources, they provide care for the victims — usually without adequate basic medications or rape kits, without computers or cameras, without sufficient electricity or supplies. Yet, the stream of victims with endless needs is long and continuous.

Our doctor and nurse colleagues are heroes, providing medical care under threatening circumstances and with limited equipment. Our police colleagues are heroes, leading complex investigations, fighting corruption, and championing justice. Our civil and criminal judge and prosecution colleagues are leaders, asking the hard questions, developing cases with hard evidence that can lead to success, and standing up to impunity.

Our week-long training was rich in dialogue and content, and we left a network of professionals committed to improving the outcomes of their daily work. 

At the heart of that network stands Dr. Mukwege. He is the model of an outspoken advocate for victims' rights and the security and development of women throughout Congo. He is doing just what his calling as a medical professional demands, including becoming a voice for his patients.

The members of the PHR Network Against Sexual Violence have joined his voice and are equally committed to this cause. The strength that we all felt in our united stand to improve the science, treatment, evidence, and prosecution of these crimes was palpable. The violence that has impacted Dr. Mukwege and his loved ones will not threaten or reduce our commitment. Our outrage at this cowardly act will only serve to strengthen our resolve.

Eastern DRC is ready to advance its commitment to human rights through these brave professionals. We must stand at their side, condemning this and other threats to the goal of equal rights and care for all victims.

For all the controversy over whether solitary confinement should ever be used in American prisons and jails, the evidence is clear: Isolation for 23 hours a day causes severe and often irreversible psychological damage. When solitary confinement is prolonged or indefinite, its harmful effects can be so severe that they amount to torture. While tens of thousands of American prisoners are kept in solitary confinement, European justice systems have increasingly recognized that such isolation often violates international prohibitions against torture.

But in a major step backwards, and seemingly in direct contradiction to its own precedents, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unanimously ruled last April that extraditing four terrorism suspects from the UK to the US, where they would almost certainly be held in indefinite solitary confinement, did not violate the UN Convention against Torture. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits extraditing or deporting someone to a place where he or she would be tortured – a basic tenet of international human rights that forms the foundation for the refugee and asylum systems.

Now Juan Mendez, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, is fighting back. In statements last week to the British newspaper The Independent, Mendez revealed that he had written to the British government to warn that extraditing Abu Hamza and his three alleged accomplices to the US would make it complicit in torture.

Mendez’s claim rests on the likelihood that if the four men were extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, they would be imprisoned at the ADX Florence “supermax” prison in Colorado. Inmates at Florence are considered to be the most dangerous and high-profile federal prisoners, and are held in solitary confinement throughout their entire time there.

In his groundbreaking report on solitary confinement, Mendez concluded that after as little as 15 days in solitary confinement, some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible. Such “prolonged” solitary confinement, he says, amounts to torture prohibited by the Convention. “For 22 to 23 hours a day they are left to look at a wall with no meaningful social contact with anybody, [and spend] maybe one hour a day exercising by themselves,” says Mendez. “There is nothing that person can do to alleviate his isolation because it is not disciplinary but completely arbitrary.”

Why the ECHR decided to contradict its own precedent on this issue is unclear. But while Europe seems to be retreating from its progressive views on solitary confinement, advocates in America are making headway in exposing the destruction it can wreak. PHR, together with the National Immigrant Justice Center, recently released a report documenting the use of solitary confinement in immigration detention facilities, while an investigation by the New York Civil Liberties Union revealed that the use of solitary confinement in New York’s prisons and jails is “arbitrary, inhumane, and unsafe.”

Unfortunately for Abu Hamza, it is probably too late for him to avoid a life of solitary confinement. Shortly after the ECHR’s ruling, the UK extradited him to the US, where he faces charges in federal court.  But regardless of what eventually happens to Abu Hamza, it is disturbing that the tribunal charged with upholding human rights in Europe seems to have no qualms about sending a man to a place where he is almost certain to face a lifetime of debilitating and irreversible psychological harm at the hands of the US government.

Cross-posted from The Huffington Post.

This blog is part of the series, "Ten Critical Human Rights Challenges for the Next President," sponsored by Freedom House. The series features renowned experts writing on some of the top human rights issues that should be addressed by the presidential candidates and the next administration. As the candidates participate in policy debates we look forward to a lively discussion of these and other important foreign affairs issues facing our country. For the full series please visit the Freedom at Issue Blog.

Women and men in Tunisia and around the world were appalled earlier this month when it came to light that a woman who filed charges of rape against two police officers was herself charged with "public indecency." After a week of protests and embarrassing press, the Tunisian president issued a formal apology to the woman, though it remains to be seen what will become of the charges against her and the police officers. This is just one recent example of a much wider affliction that plagues countries around the world: sexual harassment, violence, and intimidation directed at women.

The American policymaking and civil society community should take inspiration from the Tunisian woman who refused to be a silent victim and the countless others like her, and work together to fight against sexual and gender-based violence, in all its forms. With concerted efforts by the US government, international civil society, and local activists, real progress can be made in helping victims of sexual violence, and just as important, working to combat the institutional and social factors that can lead to such atrocities.

In August, 22 organizations and individuals in the human rights community came together to make recommendations on the biggest human rights challenges that need to be addressed by the next American president. Both Mitt Romney and President Obama should include strategies for combating sexual and gender-based violence in their foreign policy priorities.

In our respective fields we have seen people who suffered violence, mostly women, at various points on the path from victimization to survival. We see trafficked women who need refuge, and survivors of violent attacks who urgently need medical assistance. Many of those we meet have been attacked in war zones or in places of significant gender inequality. Some are in environments that enable abuse — among displaced peoples, migrant workers desperate for a better life, and districts catering to the male demand for girls and women who have been, with no meaningful choice — converted into mere commodities for sex. Too often, survivors have little or no access to justice, necessary health care, or other restitution.

There are myriad causes of sexual and gender-based violence, but one key element that encourages these crimes is the almost total impunity for perpetrators in many countries. Establishing and promoting accountability would not only punish the culprits, but would also be an essential part of the healing process for many survivors.

There is substantial evidence of the connection between conflict and instability on the one hand, and sexual and gender-based violence on the other. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), for example, women are frequently attacked by government forces, rebel troops, and other factions vying for power. According to a report published in 2011 by the American Journal of Public Health, four women are raped in the DRC every five minutes. But such violence is not limited to one country, continent, or time. Too few women who were systemically raped in the Balkans in the 1990s have had their lives restored, despite this violence aptly being classified as a war crime. Women protesters participating in the Arab Spring uprisings have been targeted with sexual violence by both government allies and opposition forces. Rape and sexual harassment are used to intimidate and punish women in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen for their political engagement, either real or perceived.

Although sexual and gender-based violence often comes to the surface in these emergency situations of war or civil unrest, the ordinary undercurrent of violence in many countries is much more sinister. For instance, a 2012 International Labor Organization report found that there were a staggering 21 million forced labor victims in the world, of whom 55 percent were female and 22 percent were exploited for sex. Even those who were exploited mainly for labor rather than sex were also subject to sexual violence.

Victims of the various forms of sexual and gender-based violence — including rape, human trafficking, female genital mutilation, and domestic abuse — are frequently prevented by societal constraints from seeking safety or justice. Too often their suffering is compounded by social stigma and denial that they are victims. Those aiming to eradicate sexual and gender-based violence therefore have dual goals: treating the immediate needs of survivors, and targeting the underlying causes of the violence. We must not only provide health care, shelter, and a path to safety, but we must also promote sustainable security, access to education, regular medical services, job training, and judicial institutions.

The United States and other democratic governments must work together with countries where these crimes often occur to create international norms, and put in place local legal structures and institutions designed to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and successfully prosecuted. The American government should make accountability for sexual and gender-based violence a priority in bilateral relations, and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for involvement in human trafficking and other sexual crimes on the part of US government employees, contractors, and military personnel. And civil society advocates and governments alike should establish and protect accountability mechanisms during conflicts, not only to guard against abuses during war, but also to stem the seepage of impunity from war zones into post-conflict societies.

The best agents of change to stop sexual and gender-based violence and push for an end to impunity are the survivors of violence themselves. And ultimately, the full engagement of women in politics and society — whether in poverty-stricken, post-conflict, or post-autocratic countries — will drive the transformation of abusive environments. But human rights advocates and democratic governments can and must support their efforts. Whoever is elected president on November 6 should make it a US policy priority to snuff out violence against, and promote the empowerment of, the half of humankind represented by women and girls.

On Sept. 25, PHR joined a group of international human rights experts and organizations in filing an amicus brief on an appeal before the Spanish Supreme Court. The case seeks to hold accountable six senior legal advisers in the Bush administration who allegedly facilitated the torture and abuse of people detained at Guantánamo and other detention sites overseas. The criminal complaint was first filed in 2009 by a Spanish prosecutor in a trial court in Spain against “The Bush Six”: David Addington, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes, and John Yoo.

In filing the “friend of the court” brief, PHR joined prominent individuals such as former UN Special Rapporteurs on Torture Manfred Nowak (2004-2010) and Theo van Boven (2001-2004); Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor of the US military commissions at Guantánamo Bay; and Major General Antonio M. Taguba, as well as organizations such as the International Commission of Jurists, and Reprieve. The brief relies on “universal jurisdiction,” a principle in international law that allows any country to try cases involving war crimes or other grave crimes, including torture, regardless of where they are alleged to have occurred.

Last year, two lower courts in Spain dismissed the complaint, relying on the United States’ submission that it was investigating allegations of torture at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and other sites.

This case and the amicus brief are particularly important in the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Aug. 30 decision to close the Department of Justice investigation into the deaths of two prisoners tortured in US custody. With Holder’s announcement, on the grounds that “the admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt,” the US is now unlikely to ever hold accountable those responsible for and involved in the torture of US detainees. While there may never be criminal accountability, America must still come to terms with the fact that scores of detainees have suffered human rights violations over the last 10 years at the hands of government in the name of “national security.” Only then might the US begin to restore its now-tarnished reputation for championing human rights at home and across the globe.

Two Senators and 22 Representatives jointly signed a letter to the King of Bahrain today, calling on him to pardon eight medical professionals convicted for providing medical care to injured protesters. The letter notes that the medics were charged and convicted for adhering to their professional obligations to care for those in need and for witnessing the Bahraini government’s excessive use of force. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) has repeatedly condemned the Bahraini government’s attacks on medical professionals, and has urged the nation’s highest authorities to immediately release the medics from prison. We at PHR commend the Senators and Representatives who signed today’s letter for taking a stand against violations of medical neutrality and for pressing the Government of Bahrain to uphold its international legal obligations.

The letter was signed by Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Representatives Jim McDermott, James McGovern, John Olver, John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Adam Schiff, Hank Johnson, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, Rush Holt, Lynn Woolsey, Charles Rangel, Raul Grijalva, Trent Franks, Jim Moran, Alcee Hastings, Sheila Jackson Lee, Earl Blumenauer, Rosa DeLauro, Michael Honda, Jan Schakowsky, and Sam Farr.

> Read the Letter

PHR is deeply troubled by media reports that members of Burma’s military could be invited to observe an upcoming US-Thai military joint training exercise.

The exercise, to be held next year, would bring together participants from the US and the Thai armed forces as well as military representatives from several other Asian nations. Extending this invitation to Burmese military officers without a clear link to military reform and accountability in Burma sends the wrong message at this critical juncture in Burma’s path to democracy, both to the Burmese military and to its countless victims.

Burma’s military has long been identified by the international community as a major perpetrator of serious human rights violations. While measurable progress toward greater rights has been made in some parts of Burma, the Burmese military continues to target members of ethnic minority groups. PHR has documented these crimes, most recently in Bitter Wounds and Lost Dreams, Human Rights Under Assault in Karen State, Burma.

Throughout our research in Burma’s ethnic communities, we have seen the disastrous effects of an army that is not accountable to the nominally civilian government either through a rigorous command and control chain or through a funding structure. Members of Burma’s military who commit crimes are very rarely held to account, even for egregious crimes, and the military sustains itself by stealing what it can from villagers across the country.

Burma has embarked on several necessary reforms over the past two years, and the US understandably wants to reward such progress. But for this progress to be sustainable, the US needs to lead the international community on the tough issue of military reform and publicly define the complete restructuring and accountability of the Burmese military as a priority policy goal.

Burma is hardly the first country plagued by an out-of-control military complex that has stretched its tentacles into virtually every sector of society. Our hard-won lessons regarding military reform learned after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia, as well as in Indonesia and emerging democracies in other parts of the world, can provide applicable lessons for a blueprint for reform in Burma. Only a detailed roadmap for military reform can ultimately ensure accountability and the undisputed supremacy of the civilian leadership.

To allow Burmese military leaders to attend live military exercises hardly addresses the crucial pre-requisite of systemic military reforms, and prematurely rewards the Burma Army without any change in behavior on its part.

Only when Burma’s military is fully under the rein of a civilian government and its members face appropriate accountability mechanisms for any crimes should the US embark on a new phase of engagement with the military.

President Obama's administration has dropped any attempts to prosecute those responsible for the torture of prisoners during the presidency of George W. Bush. Will any US personnel ever face criminal charges over the abuse of prisoners? Anti-Torture Program Director Kristine Huskey discusses this question on Al Jazeera's Inside Story.

Watch or Listen Now »

---

Source: Al Jazeera

---