Read the executive summary

Read the full report

Mass atrocities are organized crimes. Those who commit genocide and crimes against humanity depend on third parties for the goods and services—money, matériel, political support, and a host of other resources—that sustain large-scale violence against civilians. Third parties have supplied military aircraft used by the Sudan Armed Forces against civilians, refined gold and other minerals coming out of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and ensured a steady flow of arms into Rwanda. Governments seeking to prevent atrocities cannot afford a narrow and uncoordinated focus on the perpetrators of such violence. Rather, an effective strategy must include identifying and pressuring third-party enablers—individuals, commercial entities, and countries—in order to interrupt the supply chains that fuel mass violence against civilians.

The first-ever Director of War Crimes, Atrocities, and Civilian Protection on the National Security Staff recently convened a meeting that appears to initiate an interagency structure to coordinate atrocities-prevention initiatives across the government. The Administration has an opportunity in the newly initiated structure to activate all of the U.S. government’s resources to institute an atrocities-prevention policy that goes beyond responding to individual crises. This structure should incorporate a systematic approach to disrupting enablers and should ensure that all possible tools are developed and used to counter these complex crimes. The intelligence community and the Department of the Treasury, along with the Departments of State and Defense, are key to successfully tackling third-party enablers of atrocities.

Intelligence collection and analysis are crucial to identifying third parties and tracing supply chains to determine whether and where they can be interrupted. Ensuring timely and comprehensive dissemination of all relevant intelligence is crucial as well, to allow policy makers to develop and use the most effective tools against third-party enablers. The Treasury Department could target enablers of mass atrocities by freezing their assets and isolating them from financial markets—tools already used to combat supporters of terrorism, money launderers, drug traffickers, and some perpetrators of atrocities. Largely through the State Department, the United States can also exert political and diplomatic pressure—at the United Nations and elsewhere—to publicly and privately pressure these enablers.

Human Rights First offers the following recommendations to the U.S. government to identify and thwart third-party enablers and thereby improve its capacity to prevent or mitigate mass atrocities:

1. The President should publicly announce an interagency structure for preventing and mitigating atrocities, under the leadership of the Director for War Crimes, Atrocities, and Civilian Protection. This structure should be announced by December 2011 to ensure it is implemented in full by the end of the Obama Administration’s first term.
2. The President should highlight the importance of tackling enablers as part of an effective government-wide strategy to prevent and mitigate atrocities by directing all U.S. government agencies engaged in efforts related to the prevention or mitigation of mass atrocities to identify third-party enablers, act to interrupt their enabling activity, and disrupt the supply chains that connect these actors to the perpetrators.
3. The National Security Staff Director for War Crimes, Atrocities, and Civilian Protection should ensure that identifying and disrupting third-party enablers are included as explicit objectives in the interagency structure being developed to counter mass atrocities, that these objectives are addressed in all interagency discussions on situations where atrocities are threatened or are underway, and that enablers are addressed explicitly in policy measures focused on the situations of concern.
4. In situations in which atrocities are threatened or are occurring, the relevant parts of the intelligence community should be tasked by the NSS-led interagency structure or the appropriate member thereof with collecting and analyzing intelligence on enablers, and policy makers should ensure that distribution of relevant intelligence is coordinated and comprehensive. The collection, analysis, and distribution of intelligence on enablers should support policy makers’ efforts to pressure third-party actors on whom the potential or actual perpetrators depend.
5. Congress, through legislation granting standing authority, or the President, through an executive order under IEEPA, should give the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control authority to designate for sanctions not only those who perpetrate atrocities, but also enablers of atrocities wherever they occur. Congress and the administration should also ensure that OFAC has adequate resources to thoroughly investigate enablers of atrocities.
6. The relevant officials on the National Security Staff and at the State Department should, as part of their bilateral and relevant multilateral discussions with other governments, raise concerns about those governments’ transfers of arms, ammunition, and other goods to potential or actual perpetrators of atrocities. U.S. officials should be prepared to consider a range of political, economic and other tools that may be effective in pressuring those involved in enabling activities.
7. The U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations should lead other Security Council members to meet and publicly discuss options for multilateral action, including imposing, expanding, and better enforcing sanctions and other measures, to prevent enablers of atrocities against civilians in Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and other places at high risk for mass atrocities. The discussions should include consideration of enablers identified in relevant U.N. expert panel reports.
8. Congress, through its oversight of the intelligence community, should express its interest in a third-party enablers strategy and work with the relevant parts of the community to ensure it is sufficiently and effectively collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence on third-party actors on whom the potential or actual perpetrators depend and the connections in their supply chain that may be particularly susceptible to pressure or interruption.
9. Congress should include a focus on third-party enablers as part of any legislation on genocide prevention.

Read the executive summary

Read the full report

Full report available

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

Detained and Denied in Afghanistan: How to Make U.S. Detention Comply with the Law examines the situation of more than 1700 detainees held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan – more than triple the number held by the Bush administration and around 10 times the number at Guantanamo Bay. It is based on observation of hearings given to detainees by the U.S. military in Sept. 2010 and Feb. 2011; an Afghan trial supported by the U.S. military in February; as well as interviews with 18 former detainees, all of whom had been released from U.S. custody within the previous year. This report follows up on Human Rights First’s earlier report, issued two years ago, on US and Afghan detention practices in Afghanistan.

The report, backed by on-the-ground research in Afghanistan, finds that although improvements have been made, the current detention system is still plagued by failures to comply with international law.

Full Report Available (PDF)

State of Affairs: Three Years After Nisoor Square assesses the current status of reforms aiming to improve oversight and accountability of private contractors fielded abroad. It offers a series of recommendations to fix these problems.

Since the Nisoor Square incident, when Blackwater contractors killed 17 innocent civilians and injured 24 more, the U.S. government has enacted many positive reforms in U.S. law and policy. However, gaps remain in U.S. agencies’ reporting, investigation, prosecution and oversight of serious contractor incidents persist. This report outlines what further reforms are needed.

June 2010 / 46pp.

Full report available (PDF)

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

Habeas Works: Federal Courts’ Proven Capacity to Handle Guantanamo Cases examines the capacity of federal courts to handle habeas corpus cases of Guantanamo detainees. The Supreme Court, in its landmark Boumediene v. Bush decision, upheld detainees’ rights to challenge their detention in U.S. federal courts. The report analyzes how the federal court system has handled complex evidence, determined the lawfulness of detention, and established consistent procedural guidelines.

The report concludes—with the backing of 16 of the nation’s most respected former federal judges—that courts can and has set a framework for wartime detention, and there is no need for legislation, as certain commentators and legislators have argued.

Full report available (PDF)
Summary available (PDF)
Purchase this report on Amazon.com

Since 2001, U.S. immigration policy changes intended to protect the United States from terrorists are hurting thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States. This Human Rights First report offers a series of recommendations to fix this serious problem.

Also Available in PDF

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

“Since its publication last year, In Pursuit of Justice has become a kind of Bible in the escalating debate over whether our 200-year-old system of justice can withstand the challenge of trying accused 21st-century global terrorists charged with killing Americans at home and abroad. This update vindicates the original report’s conclusion that the criminal justice system continues successfully to surmount a wide array of novel dilemmas presented by these difficult cases within the parameters of time-honored rules for fair and efficient trials. The proven success of the efforts by the federal courts compares favorably with the rocky course alternative systems such as the military commissions have taken and the formidable conceptual and practical problems that would be posed by dramatic departures such as the establishment of a preventive detention scheme.”

— Patricia M. Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

“At a time when polemic continues to impede the national conversation about the government’s response to terrorism, this report builds on the enormous achievement of its landmark predecessor, In Pursuit of Justice, by methodically presenting fresh empirical evidence of the ability of federal courts to meet the challenges of adjudicating these cases in the criminal justice system under our existing legal framework. It thus makes another exemplary contribution to the ongoing examination of the government’s options for bringing accused terrorists to justice while remaining true to the rule of law and our core values as a society.”

— David H. Laufman, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

FROM THE AUTHORS
As the United States strives for a vigorous and effective response to radical Islamist terrorism around the globe, our country remains embroiled in an important and difficult national debate over when and how to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists. As part of this debate, some have argued for the creation of new, untested legal regimes to preventively detain and/or prosecute persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. However, often missing from the discussion is the fact that the federal courts are continuing to build on their proven track record of serving as an effective and fair tool for incapacitating terrorists.

We have updated our May 2008 report, In Pursuit of Justice, to include cases and developments from the past year. Our research shows a conviction rate of more than 91% since September 11, 2001 and many notable successes in a wide variety of terrorism prosecutions. This update examines recent developments in statutes used to prosecute terrorists in federal court, evolving case law clarifying the scope of the government’s military detention authority, the application of legal rules to protect classified information, and developments on other issues such as the Miranda rule, evidentiary issues, sentencing, and safety and security within the federal prison system.

The creation of a brand-new court system or preventive detention scheme from scratch would be expensive, uncertain, and almost certainly controversial. In contrast, while they are not perfect, the federal courts are a fit and flexible resource that should be used along with other government resources—including military force, intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts, and cultural and economic initiatives—as an important part of a multi-pronged counterterrorism strategy.

Richard B. Zabel
James J. Benjamin, Jr.

Available in PDF

Summary in PDF

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

Since 2003, U.S. immigration authorities have spent more than $300 million to detain over 48,000 asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities. Some of the facilities are located in remote areas, far from legal representation. Asylum seekers are detained in a system that lacks basic due process safeguards and is inconsistent with America’s longstanding commitment to protect those who flee from persecution. The report outlines ways to improve this process in ways that are more cost-effective, just, and humane.

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

Available in PDF

In a criminal justice system plagued by impunity, the tenacity with which Colombian prosecutors pursue human rights defenders for supposed crimes is striking. While corruption and arbitrary actions are a systemic problem throughout the judicial system, those who peacefully promote human rights are singled out for particular intimidation through baseless investigations and prosecutions. Unfounded charges are often widely publicized, undermining the credibility of defenders and marking them as targets for physical attack, usually by paramilitary groups. The spurious charges usually allege that the defenders are terrorists.

The report identifies patterns and trends and provides recommendations to the Colombian authorities and United States government in order to address this serious problem. It also contains a table summarizing original research from over 32 cases of unfounded prosecutions against defenders.

Compre el informe a Amazon.com

Disponible en PDF

En un sistema de justicia penal destacado por sus niveles de impunidad, la tenacidad de los fiscales Colombianos que persiguen casos en contra de los defensores de derechos humanos es impresionante. Si bien hay problemas sistemáticos de corrupción y acciones arbitrarias en el sistema judicial, se están abriendo casos en contra de los que defienden los derechos humanos de una manera particular; se les intimida con investigaciones y procesos penales sin fundamento. Además, se hacen muy públicos los cargos sin fundamento, lo que mina la credibilidad de los defensores y los señala como blancos de ataques, frecuentemente por parte de grupos paramilitares. Por lo general son acusados de rebelión y pertenencia a las organizaciones guerrilleras.

El informe contiene un análisis de 32 casos de investigaciones infundadas. Los casos presentes permiten la identificación de los temas comunes y un análisis de ellos para revelar las raíces del problema y posibles políticas para resolverlo.

Also Available in PDF

Purchase this report on Amazon.com

The latest release by Human Rights First provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date overview of hate crime in the 56 countries comprising the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Survey includes sections examining six facets of violent hate crime: Violence Based on Racism and Xenophobia, Antisemitic Violence, Violence Against Muslims, Violence Based on Religious Intolerance, Violence Against Roma, and Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Bias. The Survey also examines government responses to violent hate crimes in sections on Systems of Monitoring and Reporting and The Framework of Criminal Law and includes a Ten-Point Plan for governments to strengthen their responses. The Survey also includes an in-depth look at the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States and contains a Country Panorama section that profiles individual hate crime cases from more than 30 countries within the OSCE.

Read the Report » HTML