|
Executive Summary
Complete
Report
A. Background -- Why This Report
Was Prepared
The International Convention Against Torture
(CAT) was ratified by the United States Government in 1994, with the Government's
initial report reviewing compliance with the Convention's provisions due
to be submitted to the United Nations Committee Against Torture one year
later. This report is now more than three years overdue. In its absence,
our Coalition, made up of more than 60 contributing non-governmental organizations
dealing with a broad cross-section of issues and concerns related to torture
and other forms of cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, has decided
to release its own evaluation of U.S. compliance under CAT. Our goals are
to:
-
encourage the Government to fulfill its responsibilities
on a more effective basis, both in terms of submitting the required compliance
report, and eliminating the practices detailed below that violate internationally
recognized human rights standards related to torture; and
-
promote a better understanding among government
officials, the general public, and the NGO community of how international
human rights standards and enforcement mechanisms can be applied to domestic
issues and needs.
A similar evaluation, covering a much broader
range of human rights issues, had been submitted by our Coalition to the
Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in 1995, assessing U.S. compliance
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.(1)That
evaluation and report contributed significantly to an extensive public
hearing on U.S. human rights violations before the Human Rights Committee
that was held at the United Nations in New York City in March of that year.
There are three reasons why members of our working
group believe that preparation of a non-governmental report on torture
in the U.S. is essential. First, as the experience with the government's
initial compliance report to the Human Rights Committee in 1995 indicated,
the Government cannot be expected, without a concerted parallel assessment
and report by domestic non-governmental human rights groups, to provide
a complete and objective analysis of current problems and needs. An outside
assessment of U.S. compliance, and of the completeness and accuracy of
the U.S. Government's submissions to the U.N. monitoring agencies, is essential
for an accurate and objective assessment to be made. The United States
has long advocated the importance and necessity of maintaining active,
independent human rights monitoring and reporting by private groups in
other countries. It is no less essential that this process of independent
domestic assessment take place in our own country.
Second, while the problems and issues relating to
torture in U.S. do not match the severity of torture related problems taking
place in many other countries such as China, Sudan and Turkey, where cases
of torture and repression are frequent and extreme, they are nevertheless
surprising and alarming in scope, and deserve immediate and serious attention.
All human rights violations deserve to be remedied and prevented, not only
those occurring in foreign lands of a particularly horrendous nature. It
is important, as well, for the sake of credibility and effectiveness, for
the U.S. government and U.S.-based human rights groups to demonstrate even-handedness
in the way we treat and condemn human rights violations. Our efforts to
encourage others to meet minimum standards of human rights must begin with
a willingness to subject our own country and our own government to the
same requirements. The fact that our problems may not be as extreme should
not deter us from giving attention to our domestic needs. The best way
to promote compliance by others is to demonstrate a willingness to fully
and carefully observe international requirements ourselves, and to be open
to the process of international and domestic monitoring and analysis that
is so essential for identifying and preventing violations.
Third, reform of major deficiencies is unlikely to
take place without active exchange of information and dialogue between
government officials and the non-governmental community. Over the course
of the past few years, initially with the report under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and now with this report under
the Convention Against Torture and the companion effort involving the Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that is scheduled to be issued
shortly, we have been trying to stimulate a much greater level of communication
and exchange with the government officials responsible for major policies
in such key areas as the treatment of prisoners in detention and the processing
of refugee and asylum claims. We hope the process of productive dialogue
that has been started can continue and expand, so as to promote more effective
reform in the future.
When the report under the CAT is completed, our Coalition
will be turning its attention to the International Convention on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the initial U.S. compliance report
to be submitted to the U.N. committee monitoring that treaty - a report
that also is more than three years overdue. Hopefully, this will continue
the joint process of communication and the search for methods of effective
reform that has begun with the reports under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture.
Perhaps the best example of the type of productive
dialogue that we are hoping to produce is provided by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, which has instituted the practice of meeting regularly
with representatives from a number of NGOs to deal constructively and cooperatively
on a number of issues related to the status and treatment of refugees and
asylum seekers. Their openness to regular input and dialogue with the NGO
community is a model that should be copied by other federal agencies responsible
for dealing with each of the major issues dealt with in this report.
One other major objective for this series of human
rights reports is to help clarify the linkages that exist between international
human rights standards and enforcement mechanisms and the concerns that
have traditionally been viewed as domestic in nature. By forming a coalition
of primarily domestic groups, and introducing them to the international
standards that are relevant to their work and interests, we hope to establish
a basis for greater understanding and acceptance of international human
rights as a key component of our domestic civil rights work. Many domestic
NGOs have tended to focus almost exclusively on domestic protections and
approaches, and have demonstrated a reluctance to use international standards
as an additional basis for seeking attention and reform. The substantial
progress that has taken place in the recent past in the development and
acceptance of international human rights standards, and the numerous efforts
that our government has been making to apply these concepts to other countries,
present a new opportunity for dealing with what had previously been approached
exclusively through domestic methods.
We believe the international standards and procedures
provide new tools that can be utilized by domestic groups to mobilize international
and domestic awareness and support aimed at promoting improvements in U.S.
domestic policies and practices in such areas as the death penalty, the
execution of juvenile offenders, prison conditions and the treatment of
refugees. This is particularly true in a number of instances, as is the
case with the death penalty and treatment of asylum seekers, where the
international instruments such as CAT provide stronger standards than are
available domestically under our Constitution and laws. One of the most
important goals of our joint effort is to make the international human
rights standards and procedures more understandable to the public and to
domestic civil rights groups in the U.S., and to demonstrate how they can
be used to promote domestic reforms in an effective way. This report, and
the joint effort that has been mounted to bring a large number of domestic
groups together to compile it on a joint basis, represent an important
beginning towards this objective. Over the coming months we hope to continue
to work on a joint and cooperative basis to build on these linkages between
international human rights and domestic concerns. We welcome the input
and involvement of additional members of the non-governmental community
who would like to work towards this goal.
B. What Are the Major Areas of
Non-Compliance?
Torture, which is identified by CAT as including
all forms of government sponsored (by affirmative action or by acquiescence)
cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment, or other forms of severe pain
and suffering, both physical and psychological, currently is taking place
in the United States in a number of important areas.
1. The Death Penalty
While application of the death penalty as part of
the lawful criminal justice process is not prohibited under the CAT and
other international human rights instruments, certain important limitations
on the use of capital punishment have been established which the U.S. government
is not observing. Contrary to the vast majority of other nations, and to
the requirements of international human rights treaties the U.S. has endorsed,
the U.S. continues to execute juvenile offenders, with 12 executed in the
past 20 years, and 69 more currently on death row. In recent years, both
the U.S. government and a number of states also have substantially expanded
the number and type of crimes that have been made subject to the death
penalty, again despite prohibitions to this effect in international human
rights treaties. The tendency to prosecute juveniles as adults for serious
criminal violations that might involve the death penalty has been increasing.
Serious questions also have been raised about the
inherent cruelty involved in certain applications of the death penalty
and the inordinate period of time that some prisoners awaiting execution
are kept on death row as a result of governmental delays. The horrifying
"burning" of Pedro Medina that took place during his execution in Florida
on March 25, 1997 when an electric chair malfunctioned, served to dramatize
the inherent brutality involved in the death penalty.
The discriminatory impact of capital punishment on
racial and ethnic minorities and low-income people, persuasively documented
by the recent report of the Death Penalty Information Center, adds substantially
to the inequity and inappropriateness of the practice. All these problems
have been compounded by recently enacted laws that significantly reduce
opportunities of prisoners facing execution to appeal their convictions
and sentences to federal courts, and to obtain free legal assistance at
the appeals level.
Required Action -- The Death
Penalty: Application of the death penalty to juvenile offenders should
be prohibited under all circumstances, consistent with the requirements
of a number of international treaties binding on the U.S. Government. Expanded
use of the death penalty to additional crimes at both federal and state
levels should stop. The discriminatory impact of how capital punishment
is imposed on racial and ethnic minorities should be recognized as a sufficiently
serious problem to justify terminating its use. Recent restrictions on
the provision of free legal assistance for appeals by indigent defendants
convicted of capital crimes should be eased so that greater access to legal
assistance will be available to indigent defendants convicted of capital
crimes.
2. Prison Conditions and the
Treatment of Refugee Detainees
Despite the U.S. government's claim that adequate
legal protections exist under the Constitution and laws to prevent instances
of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" with respect to
prisoners in detention, the fact remains that a substantial number of these
types of abuses continue to take place in U.S. prisons. In fact, as part
of the crackdown on crime that is taking place in our country, prison abuses
and extra-legal punishments are becoming more frequent rather than less,
as new forms of prisoner control and harassment are introduced, such as
widespread use of long-term solitary confinement, arbitrary application
of punitive violence and long-term restraints, increasing use of control
unit and super-maximum prison facilities that isolate prisoners and impose
other harsh treatments on a punitive basis, and the re-introduction of
"chain gangs" for both men and women prisoners. The practice of indiscriminate
use of largely untested chemical sprays and electronic stun equipment to
control and punish prisoners has become widespread, often with harsh and
painful results disproportionate to any potential threat. These devices
frequently are being used on an arbitrary and unnecessary basis.
The tendencies to "privatize" detention facilities
and to house prisoners in facilities far from their homes make it more
difficult to monitor and prevent these practices. Protections for prisoners
also have been weakened by new laws reducing the ability of prisoners to
bring their situations to the attention of the federal courts.
Special problems related to abusive treatment of
detainees are experienced by those seeking asylum status, many of whom
are held in criminal facilities and mixed with the criminal population,
while awaiting determination of their claims. The case of Fauziya Kasinga,
a women seeking to escape female genital mutilation in Togo, only to find
herself subjected to serious sexual and physical abuses while in detention
in the U.S. for 16 months, epitomizes the problems that detained refugees
face despite their legitimate fear of persecution or torture, and the fact
that they have committed no crime.
Required Action -- Prison Conditions
and the Treatment of Detainees: Arbitrary and extreme methods of control
and punishment of prisoners, including long-term isolation, restraint or
immobilization, arbitrary and disproportionate use of electronic shock
and stun devices, and the widening use of control and maximum security
units and facilities, should be stopped. "Privatization" of the ownership
and administration of prison facilities by profit-making enterprises should
be recognized as inconsistent with the proper carrying out of criminal
justice functions by the government.
3. Physical and Sexual Abuse
of Women in Prisons
Gender based physical and sexual abuse is too common
an occurrence in prisons in the U.S. Recent on-site evaluations of conditions
in women's prisons have found extensive gender-based mistreatment, physical
abuse and outright sexual assault. A pattern and practice has been found
to exist, throughout the prison system, but especially at state institutions,
of male prison personnel engaging in rape, sexual assault, sexual taunting,
and unwarranted visual surveillance of female prisoners in showers and
bathrooms. Similar types of abuses against women have been attributed to
law enforcement personnel policing the border between the U.S. and Mexico
to prevent unlawful immigration. To make matters worse, most states are
failing to address custodial sexual misconduct because they do not have
adequate policies and criminal sanctions in place (or refuse to apply them),
and do not provide proper training for custodial personnel. The strong
tendency is to punish the prisoners who have been abused, rather than their
abusers. In the report they submitted in 1995 to the U.N. Human Rights
Committee, the U.S. Government, in the judgment of Human Rights Watch,
"vastly underestimated the problem of sexual abuse in women's prisons in
the U.S., and greatly overstated the degree to which it is being remedied."
Required Action -- Sexual Abuse
of Women in Prisons: Strong legislation and administrative regulations
should be adopted at all levels, and in every jurisdiction, strictly prohibiting,
and providing criminal sanctions, for sexual abuse (both physical and psychological)
of women in detention. Visual surveillance of women prisoners in bathrooms
and showers by male personnel should be strictly prohibited.
4. Return of Refugees to Situations
of Torture and Persecution, and
Their Long-Term Detention Under Abusive Conditions
Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture establishes
an unconditional right of an emigree who has experienced or faces torture
to not be expelled (refouled) back to their country of origin where they
are likely to face additional torture. Although the U.S. government makes
frequent assurances that it recognizes and observes the right of victims
of torture and persecution not to be refouled, in fact it has adopted many
practices and policies that help to produce this unfortunate (and prohibited)
result. This includes the practice of "interdicting" boat people at sea,
and automatically returning them without analysis of potential refugee
status. This approach recently was approved by the U.S. Supreme Court under
the dubious principle of "extra-territoriality," which considers actions
taken by the U.S. government outside the nation's territorial limits as
not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law and international human rights
treaty obligations.
Increasing instances of refoulement of refugees and
torture victims also are taking place as a result of the newly enacted
Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996, which calls for "expedited return"
of those seeking entry without proper papers, and significantly reduces
opportunities for legitimate refugees to make effective asylum claims.
Unless individuals are quickly identified as likely victims of torture
or persecution during a very brief interview with an immigration officer
immediately after their arrival, they are automatically returned to their
countries of origin. Victims of persecution, especially torture and rape,
often need time and medical or psychological treatment before they can
tell their stories. These are not provided in expedited processing, nor
is the opportunity to obtain legal or other representation that would help
victims deal with the asylum process.
Part of the reason for the problem is that the Government
has been very slow and uncertain in recognizing the need to include torture
as an alternative ground for preventing expedited return. It was not until
the end of October, 1998, just days before this report was published, that
the U.S. Congress adopted legislation implementing domestically the primary
requirement, included in Article 3 of the Torture Convention, that victims
of torture or those facing the prospect of torture not be sent back to
the countries they are fleeing. INS, to its credit, has acknowledged that
all government officials are bound by the Article 3 non-return requirement.
But the agency, using the failure of the U.S. Congress to adopt implementing
legislation for CAT as an excuse, for some period of time refused to issue
formal regulations providing more specific guidance to its officials and
to the public on what the standards mean and how they should be enforced.
Instead INS had to rely on internal memoranda and ad hoc procedures
for dealing with torture claims that, while helpful, did not provide sufficient
long-term, clear-cut guidance on these important procedures, nor reliable
information on the results of CAT cases that are decided. As a result of
these deficiencies, applicants for CAT protection have not been given access
to the documents related to the decisions being made in their cases. Under
INS rules, they even would be denied the right to appeal rejections of
their CAT claims to the courts.
In addition, past history suggests that the policy
of unlawful refoulement of victims of torture and persecution is applied
on a highly discriminatory basis, with Black people and Hispanics from
certain Latin American countries (such as Haiti and El Salvador) receiving
distinctly unfair and biased treatment. For many years, during the horrific
regimes of "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son, "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Haitian
refugees were routinely excluded from the U.S. primarily on the basis of
their race, according to the findings of a federal judge. As recently as
1997, Congress, for a number of months (until a public outcry forced a
change in policy) excluded Haitians already in the U.S. from special protections
granted to resident aliens who arrived in the U.S. in past years as escapees
from other repressive Latin American regimes. Until October, 1998, these
protections still were being provided to Haitians on a different and more
temporary basis than asylum seekers from other Latin American countries,
perpetuating the pattern of discrimination that has been in effect for
many years, primarily for racial reasons. This discrepancy in treatment
may finally have been corrected in the Omnibus Budget Act passed by Congress
at the end of October, 1998, which includes provisions finally granting
Haitians the same ability to apply for legal status as has been granted
for some time to other long-term resident aliens.
In addition to the problem of refoulement of torture
victims and those legitimately fearing torture, another common practice
of the U.S. Government that violates CAT is the long-term, sometimes indefinite
detention of large numbers of refugees and torture victims under conditions
that frequently are abusive and inappropriate to their circumstances and
needs. Often they are placed in state and county prisons and jails, mixed
with criminal populations, and subjected to shackling and other forms of
punishment geared to the criminal population, although they have committed
no crimes. The facts that (with few exceptions) they do not represent a
danger to the community, are not likely to flee (because they have legitimate
grounds for seeking asylum), and that many asylum seekers are in serious
need of medical or psychological assistance not available in detention,
often are not taken into account. Neither is the fact that their detention
and abusive treatment in prisons is likely to aggravate problems associated
with traumatic stress syndrome that they suffer as victims of persecution
or torture in the recent past. For women, especially those who have been
victims of rape in the context of their persecution, conditions of detention
also are conducive to forms of sexual abuse and harassment that reinforce
the problems caused by the violations they have experienced.
What makes these problems even more worrisome is
that the INS currently lacks the means of even keeping track of the numbers
of refugees and torture victims who are being detained, and the length
of time of their detention. These statistics are kept by individual detention
facilities, but are not compiled on a national basis by the INS.
Required Action -- Asylum Seekers:
The use of state and county jails and other criminal institutions to house
asylum seekers and CAT petitioners, and the practice of co-mingling asylum
seekers with criminal detainees, should cease. The practice of contracting
with for-profit companies for the operation of detention centers should
be terminated. Juveniles should not be detained under any circumstances,
or split apart from their parents. Detention of asylum seekers should be
reserved for rare instances where the government can establish a real threat
to abscond, or a substantial threat to the community, such as terrorism
or criminal activity. Legislation and administrative regulations implementing
CAT should not include restrictions on the Article 3 non-return prohibition
relating to categories of asylum seekers who are excluded from coverage,
and denying the right of judicial review to these same individuals.
5. Failure to Extradite or Prosecute
Torturers
Under international treaties all governments are
equally responsible for the effective criminal prosecution of violators
of the most significant international standards of conduct, such as war
crimes, terrorism or torture. This principle of "universal enforcement"
means that a government finding this type of offender within its borders
must either extradite them for prosecution by the country where the offense
occurred, or initiate prosecution themselves. The U.S. government has strongly
supported this approach, as is the case, for example, with the bombing
of Pan Am Flight 103, the truck bombing of the U.S. barracks in Dharhran,
Saudi Arabia, and other similar terrorist and war crime activities. However,
the U.S. government recently declined to extradite or prosecute Emmanuel
Constant, an alleged Haitian torturer, purportedly to keep from focusing
public attention on the fact that Mr. Constant may have been receiving
payments from the Central Intelligence Agency during the time when he was
engaged in torture related activity. Instead, the government entered into
an agreement with Mr. Constant to find him a safe haven in neutral territory,
over the strenuous objections of the Haitian government.
Required Action -- Extradition
of Torturers: Torturers found in the U.S. should be returned to their home
countries for prosecution, or, if this is not possible because of the possibility
of their own torture or the lack of ability or willingness of their home
governments to bring them to justice, they should be prosecuted for their
crimes in the United States as expeditiously as possible.
6. Failure to Provide for Adequate
Domestic Implementation
Despite the obligation under CAT to take necessary
action to assure domestic implementation and to provide effective remedies
to victims of violations, the U.S. government has not taken sufficient
steps to enforce CAT's provisions in domestic law. Although a general law
affirming the basic principles of the treaty was adopted, specific legislation
implementing the critical Article 3 non-return prohibition of CAT, and
making this standard legally enforceable at the domestic level, was not
made part of U.S. law until October, 1998. As important, the provision
that was adopted contained restrictions on coverage that were not consistent
with the unequivocal prohibitions of CAT. It incorporates restrictions
on judicial review of rejections of Article 3 non-return petitions, and
denies Article 3 protection to certain categories of asylum seekers, such
as criminals and terrorists, which is not in accord with the language and
intent of CAT.
A related problem is that a reservation was added
by the U.S. Senate to the instrument ratifying CAT suggesting that its
provisions were not "self-executing," and therefore could not be enforced
domestically by victims of violations. The Human Rights Committee of the
United Nations, in General Comment 24, has suggested that a "non-self executing"
reservation runs directly counter to the underlying necessity for international
human rights treaties to be enforceable domestically, and renders "ineffective
... rights which would require [a] change in national law to ensure compliance."
The U.S. government's non-self executing claim makes the need for specific
implementing legislation even greater. This problem is further compounded
by the fact that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA -- the appellate
body for asylum cases) has erroneously applied the non-self-executing reservation
to prohibit the use of CAT's provisions in regular asylum proceedings.
As noted above (section 4), one of the most notable
deficiencies in terms of domestic implementation is the failure of the
newly enacted Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
and its implementing regulations, which seek to establish one unified,
comprehensive system for processing all immigration and asylum claims,
to acknowledge that torture provides an entirely separate and additional
ground, along with fear of persecution, for not returning someone to their
country of origin. This is a significant omission, since in order to establish
fear of persecution as a basis for asylum it is necessary to link the persecution
that has occurred or is feared to one of five specifically enumerated reasons
-- race, religion, nationality, political opinion or social group. Under
the Convention Against Torture no such linkage is required, and the reason
for the torture need not be considered, making it easier for a torture
victim to prove eligibility for non-refoulement. INS has issued an internal
guideline to its personnel acknowledging that they are bound by CAT's non-return
prohibition, and administrative procedures have been set up on an ad
hoc basis to review CAT Article 3 petitions. But the INS and the BIA
refuse to accept CAT's applicability to regular asylum cases, and have
rejected efforts by asylum seekers to invoke Article 3 as an additional
basis for preventing deportation, in large part because of the long delay
in Congress' adoption of implementing legislation for Article 3.
Consistent with the requirement of Article 14 of
CAT, additional implementing action also is required to provide for adequate
compensation and treatment of torture victims. Although the U.S. government
has adopted legislation affirming the right of victims to be compensated
by their abusers through tort claims, this is limited to torture taking
place abroad, and does not address the equally important needs of assuring
compensation for torture experienced in the U.S., and providing adequate
medical treatment and psychological counseling to victims from foreign
countries.
Required Action -- Domestic
Implementation: Implementing legislation and administrative regulations
should be amended to eliminate restrictions on judicial review and on who
is eligible to invoke Article 3 protections that are included in the October,
1998 implementing provisions. Article 3's non-return prohibition should
be recognized as applying to all proceedings that could lead to an order
of deportation, including the regular asylum process, not just specialized
CAT petitions.
7. Arms Sales and Other Assistance
by the U.S. Government that Support Torture in Foreign Countries
While CAT does not specifically address the problem
of governments providing arms or other assistance that is used to promote
torture in other countries, it is reasonable to interpret the prohibition
against torture as preventing these forms of "indirect" support for acts
of torture committed abroad. Two forms of assistance along these lines
by the U.S. government have recently begun to receive public attention
and condemnation. First, the government transferred or authorized the sale
of military equipment to several governments that have used these armaments
in acts of torture. Human Rights Watch has documented that U.S. weaponry
sent to Turkey, notably small arms and helicopters, has played a major
role in a wide range of abusive practices committed against the Kurdish
minority civilian population. Along similar lines, Amnesty International
in its April, 1998 review of human rights violations by the U.S., has reported
several cases involving the transfer of electronic stun equipment to governments
likely to use them to engage in human rights violations, such as the shipment
of 10,000 shock batons to Turkey. Similar problems have been raised in
connection with proposed arms shipments to Peru and Indonesia.
Another form of support for torture relates to training
foreign police and military personnel in torture techniques. Reports have
surfaced recently about U.S. supplied training manuals and courses given
in the School for the Americas that advocated or encouraged torture as
an instrument for dealing with insurgents. There also have been reports
of U.S. military trainers being sent to Sri Lanka and other countries,
in situations that suggest that their work may be related to operations
to control the civilian populations through techniques that involve torture
and other forms of abusive treatment and punishment.
Required Action -- Arms Sales:
Arms sales to governments engaged in a pattern and practice of torture
and repression of their civilian populations, and training and assistance
provided to foreign military and security forces involved in these practices,
should end.
8. Abuse in Treatment of Those
Considered Mentally Ill
Practices used in the care of mentally disabled persons
in government operated facilities, such as extended and indefinite use
of restraints, long-term isolation, and the involuntary administration
of dangerous chemical treatments, frequently involve prohibited elements
of punishment, intimidation, coercion and discrimination that cannot be
justified by medical or safety considerations.
Required Action--Treatment of
the Mentally Ill: Abusive practices used in the treatment of the mentally
ill must be more carefully reported and monitored to prevent abuses, and
to assure that they are administered only for medical or safety considerations.
9. Involuntary Human Scientific
Experimentation
Considerable evidence recently has surfaced that
the
U.S. government, in past years, has conducted a number of what have been
classified as "scientific" experiments on human subjects without their
knowledge or consent. This includes large-scale exposures to radiation
emissions, and purposeful denial of available medical treatment to African-American
syphilis victims, allegedly for medical testing. Recent media disclosures
and admissions by government officials suggest that the scope of these
"experiments" has been far wider than previously acknowledged. As was true
for the human experimentation conducted by the Nazis in prison camps during
World War II, the "so-called" scientific aspects of these tests do not
eliminate the cruel and abusive elements that were involved. Nor do they
justify the severe pain and suffering imposed on individual test victims.
Although the tests that have been publicly acknowledged took place some
time ago, sufficient action has not been taken to compensate victims, and
to assure that similar forms of abusive experimentation would be prevented
in the future, especially in newly emerging areas of technology and weapons
development.
Required Action -- Human Scientific
Experimentation: Additional steps should be taken to assure full disclosure
and proper compensation for past involuntary scientific experimentation.
Secret testing of technology and weapons on humans, especially without
their fully informed knowledge and consent, should not be permitted, and
adequate methods for assuring that such practices not take place should
be developed.
ENDNOTES
1. See, The Status of Human
Rights in the United States, prepared by a Joint Working Group
of Non-Governmental Civil, Political and Human Rights Organizations in
the U.S., Edited by Morton Sklar, published by the Science and Human Rights
Program, American Association for the Advancement of Science, March, 1995. |
