Global Legal Assistance
HRLF also provides assistance to other attorneys involved in the litigation of human rights cases. These include dozens of human rights cases filed in such countries as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Korea, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Taiwan and Athens.
Recent Highlights
Several Judges have issued preliminary favorable opinions. These include:
Argentina
HRLF has assisted in a case filed in Argentina against Luo Gan, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China, Director of the Committee for Politicians and the Law, and Vice-director and Direct Coordinator of the Office for Controlling Falun Gong 610. When the case came before Magistrate Judge Octavio Aráoz de Lamadrid of the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9, the judge, although ultimately forwarding the case to the National Supreme Court of Justice, issued several important statements regarding the status of crimes against humanity in international and domestic law. Judge Aráoz de Lamadrid found that there was universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity committed extraterritorially, and that these violations of human rights should be judged pursuant to the domestic law of Argentina (which incorporates international law) and principles of jus cogens in international law. Judge Aráoz de Lamadrid continued, finding that the Argentine State had a duty not only to respect, but also to guarantee human rights, and that the State is complicit in the crimes if it fails to use due diligence in preventing or adjudicating human rights violations. The court found that States have a duty to prevent, investigate, and punish human rights and that failure to do so by reference to national law is a violation of this duty. The court therefore refused to follow the Justice Department’s recommendation to dismiss the case, and it did so on the grounds that the State has a duty to prosecute violators of crimes against humanity. The Supreme Court referred the case back to Judge Lamadrid, allowing him to continue with his investigation. Judge Lamadrid has investigated the case with tenacity, interviewing witnesses in many different countries, and adding Jiang Zemin as a defendant in the case. The case is currently pending before Judge Lamadrid.
Israel
HRLF has assisted in a case filed by Falun Gong practitioners against the government of the People’s Republic of China before the Israeli Sanhedrin in 2007. The Sanhedrin refused to dismiss the claim on the basis of diplomatic immunity, holding that immunity only binds states and that the Sanhedrin, which is “not an agent of the government of Israel,” is not bound by principles of immunity but rather by “a living body of Law and Morals.” The Sanhedrin also refused the Chinese Embassy’s request to dismiss the case based on China’s assistance to the Jewish people during World War II. The Sanhedrin distinguished between the Chinese nation and the government of the nation, and wrote that the court has a duty to examine the “alleged suffering of a large segment of the Chinese people.” It made parallels between the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China and the persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. In reaching its conclusions, the court refused to adhere to “normal rules of procedure and evidence” and accepted indirect, hearsay, and circumstantial evidence from a variety of sources, including a letter submitted by HRLF. The court concluded that China must assure the minimum liberties guaranteed by morality and Chinese law and must allow missions to China to investigate China’s compliance with human rights norms. It also held that China’s human rights violations should be settled before the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, or those nations and athletes participating in the games will be indicating their indifference to the human rights violations in China and their support for China’s suppression of Falun Gong and other unpopular groups. In this regard, the Sanhedrin drew a parallel between the 2008 Olympic Games and 1936 Olympic Games in Germany, writing, “the participation of many nations in the 1936 Olympic Games in Germany under Hitler was interpreted as consent to his regime.” It continued, “Ignoring the spilling of the blood of innocent people may even encourage more bloodshed,” and it found that participation in the 2008 Olympics was an indirect danger to world peace.
© Human Rights Law Foundation 2010
DISCLAIMER: The information on this Web site is provided for general information purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice and assistance from your lawyer. We recommend that you discuss your plans with your lawyer before proceeding with resolution of a legal matter.