human rights advocates summer 2008 vol51

8/14/2019 Human Rights Advocates Summer 2008 Vol51

1/18H R A 1 V. 51

Human Rights AdvocatesVolume 51 Summer 2008

ContentsAdvocacy at the UN 2

Attending the CERD Meeting 2

Racism in the United States? 4

GenderResponsive Budgeting at the CSW 5

Combating Trafficking of Women and Children 6

The Human Rights of Migrants 7

The Right to Vote 8

Suppressing Political Dissent in East Africa 9

Accountability of Private Military Companies 10

The Right to Water 11

The Human Rights Impact of Ewastes 12

Human Rights Issues in Iran and Tibet 13

In Memory of Frances Burks Newman 16

The HRA Annual MeetingBy Jeremiah Johnson

Human Rights Advocates held its Annual Meetingon April 22 at The University of San Francisco(USF) School of Law. The gathering of HRAmembers, supporters and friends was divided in twoparts - presentations by students in this years FrankC. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic atUSF, and HRAs Annual Meeting.

This past year saw a continuation of humanrights advocacy by Frank C. Newman and Edith Coliverinterns addressing a wide range of issues affecting human rights including trafficking of persons, immigrationand migration, criminal justice, the environment, racismand voting rights. Each of the students reports can befound in this newsletter and online at HRAs Web site(www.humanrightsadvocates.org).

After the presentation and discussion, HRAmembers convened the Annual Meeting. Chair JulianneTraylor welcomed everyone and on behalf of all HRA

members gave a big public thank you to Anne Wagleyfor her years of service on HRAs Board. After introductions, HRA members had an opportunity to discuss thesubstantive work of HRA and reflect on human rightswork in general.

It certainly had been a busy year for HRAwith active involvement at the Commission on Statusof Women, the Human Rights Council, and theCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.Furthermore, HRA hosted several educational events,published human rights reports, submitted amicus briefs

and were involved with cases before the InterAmericanCommission on Human Rights. HRA members alsopublished several works, including Roots of Resistance:A History of Land Tenure in New Mexico by RoxanneDunbarOrtiz; Sentencing our Children to Die in Prisonby Michelle Leighton and Connie de la Vega; andInternational Human Rights Law: An Introduction byConnie de la Vega and David Weissbrodt.

After the presentation and discussion aboutHRAs financial Report for 2007, Julianne Traylorannounced the results of the elections for the 2008

2009 HRA Board of Directors. The following sevenmembers were elected: Connie de la Vega, Jeremiah Johnson, Conchita LozanoBatista, Nicole Phillips,Birte Scholz, Julianne Traylor, and Kristina Zinnen

The meeting then turned to an open forumdiscussion led by Board member Nicole Phillips whoreported on HRAs work at the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination, in particular theCommittees review of the United States Report to theCommittee. HRA raised a number of issues at the Committee including affirmative action, juvenile life withoutparole, and immigration. The conversation moved onto address other human rights issues and ended with adiscussion on the practical uses of international humanrights law in todays society.

At the close of the meeting, Chair JulianneTraylor thanked HRA members and supporters for alltheir hard work this year and noted that this year we willbe celebrating HRAs 30th anniversary! (See details onpage 15).


2/18H R A 2 V. 51

Advocacy at the UN

By Professor Connie de la Vega

Ten students participated in the USF Frank C.Newman International Human Rights Law Clinicin the Spring 2008 representing Human Rights Advocates (HRA) at meetings of three human rights bodies.Two Edith Coliver Interns attended the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York, oneFrank C. Newman Intern attended the meetings of theCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination(CERD), and seven Frank C. Newman Interns attendedthe 7th Session of the Human Rights Council. The latter two bodies met in Geneva, Switzerland in Februaryand March 2008.

The two Edith Coliver Interns were able to attend the full session of the CSW, which gave them theopportunity to see the process from beginning to end.They were joined by Cari Nutt 07, a former Clinic student who attended both the CSW and HRC as an intern. The reports on their work and the Agreed Conclusions adopted by the CSW follow below.

One student attended the CERD meetings thatreviewed the United States report regarding its compliance with that treaty. She focused on the issue of specialmeasures or affirmative action and her report followsbelow. She was joined by HRA Board member, NicolePhillips, who addressed the issue of migrant workersrights in the U.S. as well as in the Dominican Republic

whose report was reviewed by CERD during the second week of its session. HRA National Advisory BoardMember, Michelle Leighton, Director, Human Rights

Programs, USF Center for Law & Global Justice, alsoattended the session and focused on the use of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders in the UnitedStates. All three issues were addressed by CERD in itsreport on the United States. (See, e.g. 17, 21, 28, 35,37 of the Concluding Observations of the Committee onthe Elimination of Racial Discrimination: United Statesof America, CERD/C/USA/CO/6, February 2008.)

The seven Frank C. Newman Interns attendedthe Human Rights Council and addressed a number oftopics addressed below. They included an LLM studentfrom Ethiopia. Six of the students were able to makeoral statements at the Council and participated in avariety of activities. While reading those reports, it isimportant to keep in mind that the Council is still inthe process of developing its procedures and modes ofoperation. It nonetheless adopted 36 resolutions anddecisions which included the renewal of a number ofthe special procedure mandates. The latter included therenewals of the mandates of the special rapporteurs onfreedom of opinion and expression (Res. 7/36), right tofood (Res. 7/14), violence against women (Res. 7/24)and the working groups on mercenaries (Res. 7/21) andenforced or involuntary disappearances (Res. 7/12). Italso addressed country situations which included an extension of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar for another year (Res. 7/31). It developed new mechanisms,such as the appointment of a special advisor on genocide(Res. 7/25) and water (Res. 7/22). Substantive resolu

tions such as that on the rights of the child (Res. 7/29)were also adopted. Of interest, one third of the resolutions required a vote instead of passing by consensus.All resolutions can be found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/, in Draft Report (partone) A/HRC/7/L.11 and A/HRC/7/L.11/Add 1.

The CERD Review ofthe United States

Attending the CERD Meeting

By Nicki Skibola 08

In February, I went to the Committee on theElimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD )review of the United States compliance with the treaty.The CERD Committee is a treaty body composed ofa panel of experts and meets periodically to reviewcountries compliance with the treaty or to pass general

Left to right: Mina Litvak, Rajwant Virk, Elena Gil, Mary

Johnson, Sun Kim, Caio Arellano, Professor Connie de la

Vega, and Simeneh Assefa


3/18H R A 3 V. 51

recommendations that provide guidance to memberstates. Prior to the meeting, I worked with HRA tocompile a country report in response to the muchanticipated U.S. review.

Most of my work prior to Geneva had beenworking on an amicus brief with Professor de la Vegafor the California Supreme Court in a case where theSan Francisco minority and womens contracting bidding affirmative action program was being challengedas a violation of the postProp 209 state constitution.Our amicus argument was that as the Supreme Law ofthe Land, the Constitution mandates that treaty law(CERD in our case, which has been signed and ratified by the U.S.), is to preempt any conflicting statelaw. We were arguing that not only is Prop 209, whichbanned affirmative action in California, invalid so faras it conflicts with CERD, but that the San Franciscoordinance should be upheld because of its compliancewith CERDs mandate.

My focus in Geneva was also on affirmative action in the United States, specifically with regard to itsslow and steady decline in recent years with measuressuch as Prop 209 in California and the Supreme CourtsSeattle decision. As a treaty, CERD mandates these programs, or special measures, and we were hoping to getclear language on the parameters of these special measures from the CERD Committee.

Just to give an idea of the importance of theissue, I will briefly mention some California statistics.

In fall 1996, Black students made up just over 6% of thestudents enrolled at UCLA School of Law, the followingyear, after passage of Prop 209 that number dropped toalmost one third of that number, or 2.6%. Boalt Hallat UC Berkeley saw its Black student enrollment cutby half during the same period. (Samantha Levine,Taking Action to Admit; UCLA Tweaks Its AdmissionsProcess to Stop the Black Student Enrollment Decline,U.S. News & World Report, May 27, 2007). Perhapsthe most shocking statistics are within the larger legalcommunity; as Latinos are 35% of the population

but only 3.8% of the lawyers and Blacks are 6% ofthe population but only 1.7% of the lawyers. (NancyMcCarthy, Changing the Color of the California Bench,California Bar Journal, April 2007, page 1).

My first day in Geneva, I found myself at a smallmeeting with ACLU attorneys and attorneys from theLawyers Committee for Civil Rights, all of whom clearly had lifelong civil rights careers. Sitting with thesebrilliant lawyers was intimidating to say the least, andI quickly found myself racking my brain for some wayto add something to a very highlevel discussion about

Justice Kennedys concurring opinion in the Seattle decision. After observing the conversation in awe for a fewminutes, I thought to myself, what am I doing here? Thefirst couple of days went that way, as I thought that Ishould at least try to cooperate with the large NGOgroup that was there to comment on the U.S. reportsto the CERD body. By day three, I reached crisis pointwhere I had convinced myself that I was way over myhead. I was in Geneva, almost alone, not very familiarwith the CERD process, and surrounded by NGOgroups who could brilliantly analyze the history of Supreme Court affirmative action jurisprudence, but whowere less interested with drafting strong language thatcould be submitted to the CERD experts.

It was day four that I came to the realizationthat Professor de la Vega and I had drafted some prettystrong language before the trip, and that even visitingthe Human Rights Council the year before had givenme a much better grasp on what we were supposed to bedoing than the other NGOs who had little experiencewith the UN.

So, at that point, I decided to have a little morefaith in myself and to break away from the NGO community. I focused my efforts on lobbying the committeeexperts individually and focusing on the strong Prop209 statistics that we had. With a few bumps here andthere, it worked. With the help of a long history of Human Rights Advocates focus on the topic of specialmeasures, as well a little selfconfidence and persistence

on my end, we got some really incredible language intothe Concluding Observations. The Committee, withvery strong language, basically chastised the U.S.s argument that only de jure, or intentional, discriminationmay be remedied through the courts and recommendedthat state governments adopt legislation to deal with thepersisting problem of de facto segregation. For the fullConcluding Observations, see UN Doc No. CERD/C/USA/CO/6.

Visiting Geneva for the second time was oneof the most difficult things I have ever done, but also

one of the most powerful law school experiences I havehad. Unlike my trip to the Human Rights Council theyear before, I did not have the solace of my classmatesor Professor de la Vega to guide me through my trip. Itwas scary and incredibly intimidating at first, but I realized that being a lawyer is not just about how much youknow, but its also about being personable, selfconfidentand really being able to make use of the connections youhave. Its about being tolerant and cooperating with othersbut also knowing your limits and your potentialto effect change on your own. I am really proud of our


4/18H R A 4 V. 51

work on this topic (and I say our because I by no meanstake credit for the history of work done on this topicby HRA and Professor de la Vega) and playing my solopart, through the highs and lows, was an absolutely irreplaceable experience.

Racism in the United States?

By Nicole Phillips

To the embarrassment of the United States government, over 75 nonprofit organizations, advocacy groups, and academics attended the session of theCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in February 2008 to paint a picture of racism inthe United States.

The Committee, which met in Geneva, was reviewing the U.S. fourth, fifth and sixth reports in compliance with Convention on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination (CERD). The U.S. delegation consisted of approximately 30 highlevel representativesfrom federal agencies such as the State Department,Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission. Thisdelegation was almost three times the size of the U.S.delegation appearing before the Human Rights Committee in July 2007, when the U.S. was reviewed for itscompliance with the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights.

In its presentation before the Committee, a U.S.delegate from the State Department recognized thatdisparate impacts based on race continue to be a realityin the U.S., involving issues ranging from overrepresentation of African Americans in prisons, nearsegregated housing problems, underrepresentation of AfricanAmericans as home owners, the lack of access to healthcare, disproportionate incarceration rates, and minoritygroups being disproportionately affected by sentencinglaws and laws that required an ID to vote. The U.S.admitted the disparities were vexing, but reasoned that

the causes were socioeconomic, not racial.In contrast to the U.S. position, human rightsadvocates told a different story of racism in the U.S.,including substandard housing conditions, limitedemployment opportunities and the lack of access tohealthcare among Latino and African American communities; the disproportionate numbers of AfricanAmericans and other minority groups on death rowand in prisons; high infant mortality and HIV infection rates in African American communities; and racialprofiling African Americans, Latinos, and more recent

ly, Arabs, Muslims and South Asians in the wake of9/11. Additionally, African American residents fromNew Orleans testified about police brutality after Hurricane Katrina, as well as the lack of promised housingand aid assistance. Advocates reported to the Committee that the causes of the gross disparities were, at leastin part, racially based.

Human Rights Advocates sent three representatives to address the Committee. As USF student NickiSkibola discussed in her article featured above entitled,Attending the CERD Meeting, she successfully insuredlanguage in the Committees Concluding Observationscalling for the U.S. to consider special measures (including affirmative action) to address issues of de facto segregation in our education system. HRA National Advisory Board member Michelle Leighton was the onlyadvocate at the Committee session to address the issueof the large number of juvenile racial minorities given lifewithout the possibility of parole sentences (JWLOP).The Committees Concluding Observations call on theU.S. to discontinue JLWOP sentencing and to reportback to the Committee on its efforts within one year.

I addressed racism and abuse againstundocumented immigrants in the U.S. and the lack of judicial remedies available to them, including raids byImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deathsof migrants crossing the U.S./Mexico border, and theaftermath of Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v.NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002). As part of a coalition of

other immigrant rights organizations, we were pleasedto see language in the Concluding Observation callingon the U.S. to address law enforcement brutality againstundocumented migrants crossing the U.S./Mexicoborder, to ensure effective remedies to undocumentedworkers to human rights abuses by employers, and toreport on the detention of large numbers of noncitizens,including trafficking victims and asylum seekers, andtheir families.

The U.S. has a lot of work cut out for itself before its next periodic report to the Committee, which is

due in November 2011.Human Rights Advocates Shadow Report addressing many of the issues discussed in this article isavailable at www.humanrightsadvocates.org .

The U.S. report is UN document CERD/C/USA/6, available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/AdvanceVersion/cerd_c_usa6.doc .

CERDs Concluding Observation is UN Document CERD/C/USA/CO/6, available at www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/co/CERDCUSACO6.pdf.


5/18H R A 5 V. 51

Commission on theStatus of Women

Gender-Responsive

Budgeting at the CSW: AVacation from Womens

Issues, Including Gender-

Based Violence?

By Erika Dahlstrom Nusser 08

Icame to law school to work on womens issues, andattending the Commission on the Status of Women(CSW) for the second year in a row provided a tremendous opportunity to pursue this goal and expandmy approach and understanding. Further, the work Icompleted in preparation for, and at the Commission,strengthened my research, writing, analysis, and advocacy skills, among others. The experience exemplifiedmy notion of what it is to be an attorney, which is to say,a person who is constantly learning and I learned a lotas an Edith Coliver Intern in the International HumanRights Law Clinic.

The fiftysecond session of the Commission lastMarch was more challenging than I expected. I hoped

that my experience last year would allow me to hit theground running, and while I was not faced with thesame steep learning curve at the outset, there were newtwists and turns that forced me to learn new ways to accomplish my goal at the Commission.

The first twist was the theme of fiftysecond session. Each year the Commission focuses on a narrowlydefined issue facing women, to encourage countries tocome up with and abide by concrete solutions. Thisyear the Commission focused on financing for genderequality and the empowerment of women. (See www.

un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/ 52sess.htm for moreinformation on the theme.) My work on the issue posedrecommendations on how countries could use genderresponsive budgeting toward the eradication of physicaland sexual violence against women. This linkage to thetheme was key, since otherwise delegates would not beresponsive to my proposals.

While I made the connection, the delegates didnot seem as willing to do so. Certainly most of the delegates that I spoke to understood the link I was tryingto make; and the idea that genderresponsive budgeting

has little meaning until it is tied to concrete womens issues. Rather, delegates were simply unwilling to addressthe issue in such concrete terms. As I heard repeatedlyfrom the European Union members, the delegates justwanted to talk about budgeting. In fact, this would bethe position of every delegate I spoke with at length. Itseemed the delegates embraced the theme of the fiftysecond session as an opportunity to take a vacation fromtalking about difficult womens issues.

For this reason, my first week at the Commission was very frustrating. I had high hopes for all that Iwas going to accomplish. After the first week I felt likeI had accomplished very little, and I was exhausted. Irealized at that point, that my goal needed to change.My efforts were likely not going to have a great impacton the language of the Agreed Conclusions, the outcomedocument of the Commission. However, I still had thechance to educate delegates about the importance ofgiving the genderresponsive budgeting mandate someteeth information that those delegates could takeback to their respective countries. It is this microlevelwork that is most important because it has the most impact on women.

I spent the remaining week at the Commissiontalking to delegates and other NGOs about the shortcomings of talking about genderresponsive budgetingin general, undefined terms. In particular, I emphasizethat budgeting that fails to account for genderbasedviolence, fails women in three important respects.

First, it sends a message about who is valued.Governments that fail to provide funding for the legaland social responses required to combat genderbasedviolence, set a national precedent about the value ofwomen that trickles down to all levels of society. This,in turn, perpetuates the problem. (The adopted versionof the Agreed Conclusions does include language onsome of HRAs suggested remedial measures. See CSW,Agreed conclusions on financing for gender equality andthe empowerment of women (March 13, 2008), UNDoc. No. E/CN.6/2008/L.8.)

Second, it subjects women to preventableviolence. A clear human rights violation, and as theCommittee on the Elimination of Discrimination againstWomen clarified in its General Recommendation No.19, genderbased violence constitutes discrimination andis therefore explicitly prohibited under the Conventionon the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.(CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 19.) Finally,it further victimizes women at the hands of the state.Leaving women with no recourse is a failure to fulfillwomens fundamental rights to life, liberty, security,


6/18


7/18H R A 7 V. 51

Intern 06), I approached my first delegate shortly afterpresenting our statement on the second day. AlthoughI was successful in gaining access to delegates and manydelegates acknowledged the importance of my topic, itwas a hard sell getting commitments from them to include specific language in the agreed conclusions. Rather,as I listened to delegates official statements throughoutthe first week, I quickly realized the agreed conclusionswould be more narrowly focused than in past years andthat delegates were uninterested in including specificsubtopics such as combating trafficking, even withinthe budgeting framework. As one colleague put it, it isas if the delegates were on vacation.

To add to my difficulty of swaying delegates, allofficial meetings were closed to NGOs on the third dayof the conference. Although this was an unprecedentedmove, I did not lose hope and switched my focus toattending parallel meetings hosted by NGOs, UNgroups, and State parties. Right away I joined forceswith the U.S. NGO Caucus, a group of over 50 NGOs,in preparing draft language. It was in this capacity thatmy legal research and writing skills were utilized. Muchto the awe of the other members of the Caucus, in just afew hours I was able to take over ten pages of suggestedlanguage and synthesize it into a tailored and focusedtwopage document, which was greatly received by thegroup.

The closure of open meetings did not last,most likely due to the uproar of over 5000 participat

ing NGO members. For the remainder of the CSW Ifocused my lobbying on State parties that had taken affirmative actions against trafficking in their own state.This strategy seemed effective in that one of the lastdrafts of the agreed conclusion contained language directly from our handout of suggestions. However, bythe final draft the language was less specific and didnot address trafficking directly. I do believe, based onseveral of the paragraphs in the agreed conclusions thatErika, Cari, and I had impact.

Overall, I believe HRAs participation at

the CSW was a success. We were able to take issuesbroughtup by HRA in years past and remind delegatesthat these problems have not been fully addressed orresolved. By joining the U.S. NGO Caucus, I was ableto voice my concerns regarding the lack of action being

taken to protect women and girls for the horrors oftrafficking and I was able to offer my own personal skillsand assistance. In addition, the overall CSW experiencewas inspiring and a fantastic learning experience. Iwould like to thank the USF Law School Frank C.Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic forthis remarkable opportunity. [The final draft of theAgreed Conclusions from the 52nd CSW is availableat: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/adv_unedited_AC_resolutions.html.]

Human Rights Council

The Human Rights

of Migrants

By Mary Johnson 08

This semester I was able to continue my research onthe human rights of migrants in preparation forthe 7th session of the United Nations Human RightsCouncil in Geneva. While Human Rights Advocateshas been advocating for protection of migrants rightsfor many years, new developments in the United Statesimmigration policy caused us to expand coverage of thetopic to include the human rights implicated by the battery of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

raids and the increased use of migrant detention centers.Other issues covered in my report include violations ofthe right to life at borders and violations of migrantscore labor rights. The 1500word short statement (A/HRC/7/NGO/13) summarizing the issues can be accessed at: http://documents.un.org. (All NGO documents from the Council may be found at this site.).

Issues related to migrants rights are addressedby a fairly substantial body of international law as compared to other topics the Frank C. Newman Clinic interns advocate for at the Council. However, there are

significant gaps that need filling, not to mention the palpable resistance from many governments, particularlyWestern/developed/receiving nations.

Although the Convention on the Protectionof the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members ofTheir Families entered into force in 2003 as a mechanismto address this especially vulnerable group of people, only37 countries have ratified it so far, most of them sendingcountries. Italy was set to be the first receiving countryto ratify the treaty, but the ratification process has beenstalled by apparent conflicts with European Union law,

On May 27, 2008, the Modesto Bee, in Modesto,California, ran a story on Jeenis work at the CSW.They are very proud that one of their own was ableto speak at the UN. http://www.modbee.com/lo-cal/story/310176.html


8/18


9/18H R A 9 V. 51

the language advocated by Egypt, Pakistan, and Palestine. (A/HRC/7/RES/36). The language directed theSpecial Rapporteur, [t]o report on instances in whichthe abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination. (A/HRC/7/RES/39). The final vote was 32 in favor, noneagainst and 15 abstentions. The vote for the insertionof this specific language was 27 in favor, 17 against and3 abstentions. In addition, an oral amendment was added by Cuba and adopted about the importance for allforms of media to repeat and to deliver information in afair and partial manner.

Against this backdrop, I tried to advocate for either including the right to vote under the current mandate, which I learned was not possible at this session, orto make the right to vote a separate mandate. My reportfocused on the ways in which the right to vote is derogated and how the derogation of the right to vote implicates other human rights. (A/HRC/7/NGO/15). Iargued that the right to vote was an important issue thatdeserved attention but was not included in the currentCouncils session. The right to vote was derogated in avariety of ways.

In my report, I focused on the derogation of theright to vote by procedural mechanisms, such as the inconsistency of electronic voting machines in the UnitedStates or the requirement in Indiana of a mandatorygovernmentissued photo ID card in order to vote. Further, the right to vote is derogated when there is corrup

tion in the electoral process, such as the recent Kenyanpresidential elections. The violation of the right to voteoften leads to violations of other human rights, as wehave seen in Kenya it led to widespread civil unrest.

In my lobbying efforts, I was successful in setting up a meeting with the Special Rapporteur, AmbeyiLigabo, at the Palais Wilson to talk about the right tovote. Professor de la Vega, fellow intern Mary Johnsonand I went to the Palais for the meeting and talked atlength with the Special Rapporteur and Associate Human Rights Officer, Renato Mariani. The Special Rap

porteur was very interested in the right to vote and wassupportive of our efforts. We realized that it was notpossible to insert it into the current mandate but it gaveus hope for future efforts. It was also a nice change ofpace to visit the Palais Wilson after going to Palais desNations every day.

Taking a step back from the details of drafting amandate, I realized this was more of a philosophical debate about how different countries, cultures and religionsdefine something as basic as the freedom of expression.This fundamental debate made me have a legal realist

or even a critical legal theory moment: a realization thatlaw is created by humans and all law is political.

Sitting among the different country delegates,earpiece on my ear, listening to the placement, insertion and deletion of words, I understood that thesedelegates were working under guidance of their officialgovernments stance on this particular issue. WhetherI thought their opinion was right or wrong was a product of my own biases: my education in an American,individual rightsfocused, legal framework that believesthe freedom of expression is a fundamental right in afunctioning democracy. In that world, the freedom toexpress my opinion was safeguarded because as longas I was able to express my opinion, someone with thecounterpoint or opposing opinion was also allowed toexpress his.

This creation of a marketplace of ideas wassomething our legal system is deeply committed to.Listening to these drafting meeting discussions was anexercise in reflection for me, as a future lawyer, to realize that my views were coming from a certain viewpointand a certain experience.

My experience in Geneva was a highlight of mylaw school career. It was exciting to go to the UN everyday and attend the Council meetings. It further solidified my desire to pursue a career in international law andgave me a small taste of what it might be like in the future. As a 3L, I am extremely grateful I was given thisopportunity and I thank Professor Connie de la Vega

for all her hard work and support.

Torture as a Method of

Suppressing Political

Dissent in Selected Eastern

African Countries

Simeneh Kiros Assefa 08

For my first attendance at the UN Human RightsCouncil, I chose the theme Torture as a Method ofSuppressing Political Dissent in Selected Eastern African Countries. As part of my study in Human Rightsand Democratisation in Africa, I worked as a humanrights intern for a local NGO in Uganda for 5 monthsin 2002. While in this position, my first experience inhuman rights work, I learned about a person in Ugandawho was made to kneel down while 20 kilos of brickswere tied to his genitals, and then made to stand andcarry it, sustaining serious injury. When he was taken


10/18H R A 10 V. 51

to medical care, it was too late and the doctors had toamputate his genitals.

In a very different scenario, in 2007 I was working for the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, a nationalNGO in Ethiopia. One morning I received a letter froma person in jail, fully describing his situation and howlong he had been bitterly tortured. While we were endeavoring to obtain supporting evidence in order to release a special report, a few days later a different storycame to my office - the person had passed away. Thesaddest part of the story is that the person died only anhour before the court handed down its decision on thepetition of habeas corpus that he be release from jail.

What is common about these two individualsis that they are victims of terrible forms of torture formerely differing from the ruling party in their views.Uganda had what is called Movement to which everyone can be a member; any differing view is a dissentfrom the views of the president. It was not until 2005,that Uganda introduced multiparty election system bya referendum.

These two stories, as brutal as they are, are onlyexamples; there are various less brutal cases in othercountries in the region. In my report (A/HRC/7/NGO/14) I focused on three countries: Eritrea, Ethiopia and Uganda. Eritrea has never had an election sinceindependence in 1993; those who demanded an electionare in jail; many of them were tortured. Ethiopia had twoparliamentary elections in 2000 and 2005, and Uganda

had two presidential elections in 2001 and 2006.As these two elections were relatively contestedelections in the history of those two countries, the respective governments responded heavyhandedly. Theycracked down on opposition at the lower level andthose in the countryside. Such practices are executed inan organized manner but the ruling party makes useof the government machinery, including the police andsecurity forces, sometimes with high pressure on the judiciary. Such torture is committed subsequent to awidespread arbitrary detention usually in secret and/

or distant places.Such practices are contrary to the domestic lawof the respective countries and to their international obligations. My recommendations thus included that lawenforcement have access to the conventions to whichthose countries are party by translating them into local languages, that places of detention be designated bylaw, and that remedies be afforded to victims of torture,among others.

I handed my reports to the Special Rapporteuron Torture, Chairperson of the Working Group on Ar

bitrary Detention and delegations of countries that areactive in the human rights dialogue, democratic, andgood governance processes in those countries so thatthey would support our cause.

It is true that doing research and submitting thereport should not be a onetime action for effective human rights advocacy. As Ethiopia is scheduled for Universal Periodic Review in 2009, I am trying to have myorganization EHRCO be registered by ECOSOC tocontinue our participation in the Councils subsequentsessions and to be able to submit a shadow report. Inorder to strengthen the organization I am organizingfriends and people I know in order to form a supportgroup in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is open to everyone who supports the causes of human rights, rule oflaw and democracy.

My participation in the UN Human RightsCouncils session was more than an academic exercise.I was introduced to people vigorously working for thesame cause; to people who appreciate our work backin Ethiopia. It was an atmosphere where I did not feelas lonely as I had been in my office. That is why I amvery much encouraged to continue my work in humanrights. I am therefore extremely grateful to Professor dela Vega, the USF International Human Rights Clinicand the Human rights Advocates who supported myparticipation in the Session. I am also grateful to my fellow students who have been nice and supportive.

Holding Private Militaryand Security Companies

Accountable for Human

Rights Violations

By Caio A. Arellano 08

This semester, I worked on the issue of corporate accountability mechanisms for human rights abusescommitted by private military and security companies(PSCs). Corporate Accountability for Human RightsViolations by Mercenaries and Private Security Companies, February 18, 2008, (A/HRC/7/NGO/11).

Of course, the most visible and welldocumented examples of human rights abuses by PSCs arethe abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the allegedshootings of Iraqi civilians by Blackwater USA employees. However, PSCs operate in more than 50 nationsand on every continent except Antarctica. Thus, privatized military activity poses a potentially significant


11/18H R A 11 V. 51

threat to human rights around the world.My research focused on violations of the right

of peoples to self determination, as well as the right topersonal security and the rights of workers. The Human Rights Council addresses this issue through itsWorking Group on the use of mercenaries as a meansof impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to selfdetermination.

In my report, I recommend stronger domestic regulation and oversight as well as an internationalscheme for addressing the violations from a regulatoryperspective. More specifically, I examine the Normson the responsibilities of transnational corporationsand other business enterprises with regard to humanrights, adopted in resolution 2003/16 by the formerSubCommission on the Promotion and Protection ofHuman Rights.

The general obligations set forth in the Norms,including the right to security of persons, respect for national sovereignty, and the rights of workers, corresponddirectly with the rights abuses committed by PSCs. TheNorms call upon transnational corporations to adoptinternal compliance and enforcement mechanisms andrequires States to necessary the legal and administrativeframework to ensure that corporations take such measures. Despite the enormous amount of effort that wentinto drafting the Norms and their direct relevance tomany human rights abuses committed by corporate actors, the Norms receive scant attention from the Coun

cil and the General Assembly.While in Geneva, I discussed my recommendations in detail with delegates from Cuba, Peru, Honduras, South Africa, Russia, and Pakistan. I also distributed my report and recommendations to Chair of theWorking Group on the use of mercenaries and delegatesfrom Venezuela, Ecuador, and the Philippines.

Since the mandate of the Working Group onthe use of mercenaries was up for review, my first objective was to support renewal of the Working Groupsmandate. However, I also presented council members

and other delegates with draft language for the substantive resolution on this issue, which the Council will bepresenting to the General Assembly later this year. Inparticular, I proposed language articulating the need todevelop standards for addressing human rights violations by corporations. Overall, the delegates I met withwere very receptive to my research and they will hopefully consider including my recommendations in futureresolutions.

On the final day of the session, the Council voted to renew the mandate of the Working Group on the

use of mercenaries by a vote of 32 in favor, 11 against,and 2 abstentions. Human Rights Council Resolution,Mandate of the working group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating the right of peoples to selfdetermination, 28 March 2008, (A/HRC/7/RES/21).

The International Human Rights Clinic wasamong the most fun and rewarding experiences in mythree years at USF. The clinic provides USF studentswith a truly unique opportunity to participate in international human rights law at the policymaking level. Iam extremely grateful to Professor de la Vega and Human Rights Advocates for their support this semester.

The Right to Water

By Rajwant Virk 08

Attending the Human Rights Council in Geneva aspart of the Frank C. Newman International Human

Rights Clinic at the University of San Francisco was anextremely educational and memorable experience. Mytopic focused on the human right to water with an emphasis on corporate responsibility. During this particularsession, the right to water was not on the agenda, so inorder to address the issue I had to relate it to the right tofood. Water is as indispensable a part of the right to foodas to the right to health, life and housing.

The human right to water is recognized underGeneral Comment 15 of the Committee on Econom

ic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, further effectneeds to be given by the Council and the internationalcommunity. Water is a limited natural resource fundamental for life and health. Yet over a billion people lackaccess to a basic drinking water supply and several billion do not have access to adequate sanitation, which isthe primary cause of water contamination and diseaseslinked to water. The continuing contamination, depletion and unequal distribution of water is exacerbatingexisting poverty and harming peoples chances to lead alife in human dignity.

In my written report and oral intervention, Isupported a need for a separate resolution addressingthe recognition of the right to water. Recognizing thehuman right to water will hold the Council as well itsState members accountable to promote, protect and fulfill the right to water. This would require States to develop national legislation aiming to guarantee the rightin a nondiscriminatory basis confirming water as a legalentitlement for all its citizens.

In addition, I urged the Council and its members to hold corporations accountable for any activities


12/18H R A 12 V. 51

in violation of the right to water. Comodification ofwater in some countries has resulted in price increasesleaving the poor without basic water services but resulting in a $400 billon industry for corporations. Inmany cases, States have moved towards privatizationof their national water supplies with little or no monitoring of corporate institutions carrying out these policies. In countries such Bolivia and the Philippines highwater prices after privatization left citizens withoutwater and numerous protests (termed the water wars)called for governments to rescind their contracts. Inaddition, the harm to the environment has been disastrous resulting in the over pumping of limited groundwater resources.

When I arrived in Geneva, I was surprisedto learn that a key resolution on the right to watersponsored by Germany and Spain was being discussedin various side meetings. However the resolution draftwas far from comprehensive in addressing the rightto water. It addressed the equitable access to waterand sanitation rather then recognizing it as a definiteright to water. In addition it contained no languagewhatsoever regarding corporation responsibility. Somy goal at the session became two fold, first to garnersupport for the mandate and second to address thelanguage of the draft including reference to corporateresponsibility.

I spoke with various delegations, having someexperiences that were rather fruitless but others that

were encouraging. In addition to lobbying and disseminating my research, I also attended various NGO andIGO meetings covering topics on the right to food, theright to water and climate change. In the end, the resolution adopted by Human Rights Council on March 20,2008, refers to access to safe drinking water and sanitation and calls for the appointment of an IndependentExpert. (A/HRC/7/RES/22). The resolution, however, does cite General Comment 15 which does referencethe right to water. However, much more work needsto be done to further promote and protect the human

right to water.My participation in the clinic and being apart of the UN session was extremely rewarding andexciting. I gained indepth knowledge about not onlyon my topic but various other human rights issuesprevalent in the world today. Just sitting and observingthe session meetings provided a wealth of knowledgeand education. Overall, it was a great experience and ahighlight of my time in law school. I thank Professorde la Vega, HRA and USF for offering me such anamazing opportunity.

The Human Rights Impact of

E-wastes and Sham-recyclers:

A Call for Mandate Expansion

By Elena Gil 08

Environmental justice is an issue with which I am veryinvolved and about which I care very deeply. Thus, I

was very excited to work on environmental justice issueson an international level as a Frank C. Newman Intern. Iresearched the adverse effects of the illicit movement anddumping of toxic and dangerous products and wasteson the enjoyment of human rights. Too often, the mostvulnerable, disenfranchised communities end up enduring a disproportionate burden of transboundary toxicwastes dumpingand this is where an environmentalinjustice occurs on an international scale.

My research focused on the improper disposalof electronics wastes and sham recyclers. Most of theworlds electronic waste ends up in countries such asChina, India, and Africa. For example, most of theeighty percent of recycled electronic waste the U.S.ships to China ends up in Guiyu, a oneindustry townfilled with small enterprises called recyclers. (TerryAllen, China is Our E-Waste Dumping Ground (Jan.5, 2008), In These Times, available at http://www.alternet.org/story/72529.) About eighty percent of thefamilies work in the Guiyu recycling industry and re

cover copper, gold, and other valuable materials fromelectronics without adequate, if any, protective equipment. (Id.) After extracting the valuable substances,the rest of the product is then dumped. The effects onresidents health include birth defects and some of theworlds highest levels of dioxins and lead. Furthermore,the towns drinking water has been rendered useless,with once potable water now able to dissolve a coinin a few minutes. (Greenpeace, Toxic Tea Party ( Jul.23, 2007), http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/ewastechinatoxicpollution230707 (last vis

ited Jan. 20, 2008)).One problem with these scenarios is that often,supposedly recycled products end up being dumped inplaces like Guiyu despite formal recycling efforts in theexporting country. This is possible because recyclingwastes are not tracked until their final downstream disposition. For example, the U.S. government does notmonitor such exports. A 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that it is difficult to verifythat exported used electronics are actually destinedfor reuse, or that they are ultimately managed respon


13/18H R A 13 V. 51

sibly once they leave U.S. shores. (Terry Allen, Chinais Our E-Waste Dumping Ground (Jan. 5, 2008), InThese Times, available at: http://www.alternet.org/story/72529.) Thus, people and entities who try to dothe right thing and send their ewastes to a recycler donot really know where the ewastes really end up.

This problem is compounded by the pervasivelack of certification process for electronicwaste recyclers. Virtually any company can claim it recycles waste,even if all it does is export it.

(Lu Rucai, The Problem of E-waste (Jan. 8,2008), China Today, available at http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/238544.htm.) The U.S. EPA, forexample, admits that it only evaluates the business practices, not environmental practices, of private recyclingcompanies for their inclusion on the U.S. General Services Administrations (GSA) Environmental ServicesSchedule. (EPA, Recycling of Electronic Equipment 3(2006), available at http://www.federalelectronics challenge.net/resources/docs/recycling.pdf.)

This lack of accountability for the finaldisposition of recycled materials has propelled theundisputed growth of sham recyclers. Sham recyclersare private companies who are supposed to providerecycling services to the government, businesses andother entities, but in reality end up disposing recyclablesas cheaply as possible. The cheapest way usually entailsexploiting countries that lack the resources to enact orenforce environmental laws regulating the handling of

toxic wastes.Aggravating the problem is that despiteinternational efforts to regulate transboundarymovements of toxic wastes, there still does not existinternationally standardized definitions of key termslike hazardous and recycling,. When what constitutesan illegally hazardous product can differ from countryto country, entities have the incentive to shop aroundfor places that do not consider their toxic goodshazardous. (See Jennifer Clapp, Toxic Exports: TheTransfer of Hazardous Wastes From Rich to Poor 88

(2001)). Governments are likewise encouraged to offervague definitions in order to attract businesses. Thus,a race to the bottom is propagated and legal transfers oftoxic substances cause equally devastating impacts onhuman rights as do illicit transfers.

My efforts at the Human Rights Council focusedupon attempting to expand the toxics mandate to includelegal, in addition to illicit transfers of toxics. Furthermore,since geopolitical borders are irrelevant in examining theimpact of toxic wastes on human rights, I also worked onexpanding the mandate to include domestic and not just

transboundary toxic waste problems.To this end, I met and exchanged information

with many delegates and NGO representatives. Armedwith my research, I was prepared to actively contributeto the dialogue and disseminate my report to interestedparties. [See short version of report at Human RightsAdvocates, The Human Rights Impact of the IllicitMovement and Dumping of Toxic Wastes, (A/HRC/7/NGO/25), Feb. 22, 2008].

The issues we outlined at the Council are goingto be included in the upcoming mandate renewal debatein June and thus, I felt that my input really helped moldthe direction and future of the toxic wastes mandate.

I hope to continue to play an active role in theseefforts in the future. Attending the Human RightsCouncil gave me solid working knowledge of international politics and how they affect the international human rights movement. I hope, in a small way, to havecontributed to its evolution and look forward to futureopportunities to work on environmental justice andother human rights issues in both international and domestic arenas.

Juvenile Sentencing,

Womens Rights in Iran,

and Human Rights

Violations in Tibet

By Mina Litvak 08

My trip to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC)was the perfect end to my three year law schoolcareer and a remarkable start to a legal career in humanrights, in which legal activist can bring grassroots humanrights efforts to a global forum. I would like to thankProfessor Connie de la Vega, the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Clinic, and Human RightsAdvocates for this unique exposure to the international

human rights community.

Juvenile SentencingI was enthusiastic about working on the juvenile deathpenalty and juvenile life without parole as they exemplifythe need for evenhanded enforcement of human rightsacross politically, economically, culturally, and ideologically diverse nations. Juvenile life without parole is apractice that continues solely in the U.S., and brings tothe fore race, class, and gender issues in the U.S. criminal justice system. My written and oral statements to the


14/18H R A 14 V. 51

HRC highlighted that youth of color constitute a disproportionate number of the 2,381 child offenders sentencedto life imprisonment without parole (Human Rights Advocates, Juvenile Sentencing: Juvenile Death Penalty andJuvenile Life without the Possibility of Release, March2008, Human Rights Council, (A/HRC/7/NGO/24)).For example, in California, Latino children are five timesmore likely to receive the sentence than white childrenand African American youth are 20 times more likely.Outside of the U.S., Palestinian children sentenced inthe Occupied Territories and children sentenced in Argentina face great difficulties in applying for parole, andthus may effectively be condemned to die in prison. Regarding the juvenile death penalty, Iran and Saudi Arabiacontinue sentence to death youth who were under 18 atthe time of the offense. These are long standing issuesundertaken by the Clinic in which we have had many victories in the past, and continue to forge global change.

The UN serves nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as a forum giving direct access to government representatives with information on humanrights issues and who are able to influence governmentsto take steps toward greater human rights compliance.We thus concentrated our efforts on gathering information on the current laws regarding juvenile life withoutparole and the juvenile death penalty in countries thathave continued these practices. We also became awarethat the Arab Charter on Human Rights had come intoforce just before the HRC began its session, and it con

tained a provision that could allow for the juvenile deathpenalty in countries with national legislation permittingthe practice.

While the Arab Charter provides that it shouldbe read in conformity with international human rightsinstruments, including the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child and the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights which prohibit the juvenile death penalty, it was important to ensure that would be the case. Allparties to the Arab Charter have ratified the CRC withno reservations to Article 37, and most have ratified the

ICCPR. Therefore, we concentrated on adding languageto the Child Rights Resolution to ensure that regionalagreements do not weaken protections afforded to juvenile offenders in international agreements. In addition,the resolution requests governments to stop using thedeath penalty and life sentences without parole for juveniles. Another goal this year was promoting alternativesto juvenile detention, and we managed to influence theChild Rights Resolution Draft Committee to includelanguage on alternatives to detention in the Resolution(for all of these issues see, Rights of the Child, Human

Rights Council Resolution 2008/34, 7th Session, A/HRC/7/RES/29, especially Paragraphs 30 and 31).

These achievements provide human rightsworkers on the ground with authoritative sources intheir tireless efforts to enforce human rights. For example, Efren Paredes is an activist sentenced to life withoutparole in Michigan when he was only 15 years old. Human rights activists who are working with Efren Paredesuse statements and resolutions coming out of the UNwhen battling juvenile life without parole sentences inU.S. courts. Speaking with delegates at the HRC wasa unique opportunity to gain international exposurefor Efren Paredes case and to ensure that human rightsstruggles on the ground are filtered up to the global echelon of human rights decision making.

Womens Rights in Iran: Death by StoningI also submitted a statement to the HRC on humanrights in Iran. I submitted my statement to the SpecialRapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causesand Consequences, on death penalty gender discrimination in stoning sentences for the crime of adultery. First,stoning is applied to women more frequently than men(Human Rights Advocates, Stoning: Violation of International Human Rights Standards, February 2008,(A/HRC/7/NGO/26)). Currently, ten out of twelvepeople given stoning sentences are women (AmnestyInternational, Document, March 18, 2008, Iran: Further Information on Death penalty/ Stoning: Mokar

rameh Ebrahimi (f ). Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/ en/library/asset/MDE13/051/2008/en/MDE130512008en.html).

I met with various NGOs working on humanrights in Iran. In addition, I attended various side panelmeetings addressing Islamaphobia as a troubling post9/11 phenomenon, in which Muslim communities andstates have increasingly become targets of religious andracial discrimination. I was pleased to see how Islamicstates banned together to combat this form of discrimination on a worldwide scale.

Human Rights Violations in TibetBy happenstance, I was at the HRC during the tragiceruption of Chinese state violence against Tibetanprotestors, after having spent the previous summer inDharamshala, India teaching human rights to Tibetanyouth through the Center for Law and Global Justice.I was initially disappointed to see the issue in Tibet become a testament to the fact that the UN operates under the myth that sovereign states hold equal politicalweight, thereby masking economic inequality between


15/18H R A 15 V. 51

states and the fact that many states have compromisedtheir political sovereignty to secure certain economicbenefits. This was exemplified clearly in Chinas abilityto censor the Council and prevent countries from raisingthe issue, while as each minute passed, Tibetan monksand protestors were being killed and tortured. No country had raised the issue after a full week of suppressionand over 80 reported dead. Indeed, I began to notice theChinese delegation increased in number each day.

However, the events that occurred over my final days at the HRC revealed to me the importance ofnongovernmental organizations presence at the HRCin raising the concerns of human rights activists. I beganworking in collaboration with various NGOs to write aletter to the President of the HRC and the chair of theSpecial Procedures Coordination Committee requesting a UN factfinding mission be dispatched to all affected areas of Tibet and China immediately. I spokewith a number of state delegates, including the U.S.,Canada, and the European Union, about raising the issue. NGOs also collaborated to force a minisession onthe human rights abuses by Chinese authorities in Tibet. NGOs were extremely supportive and agreed makeoral interventions during general debate of the follow upand implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, each attacking a different aspect of theissues unfolding in Tibet. We also planned to distributewhite ribbons to be worn to support peace in Tibet, andto display pictures of the protests in the main hall.

This was all carried out on the following Tuesday, once I had already returned to the U.S. Sloveniaon behalf of the EU, Switzerland, the U.S., Canada,Australia, Italy, and France all raised or supported statements asking China to urge restraint and calling for afact finding mission. All Tibetan supporters were continuously cut off by China, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, andCuba, claiming that country specific situations were notto be raised in general debate of the follow up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Program ofAction. The President eventually suspended the meet

ing, although NGOs insistently continued to raise Tibetissues after commencement of the meeting later.Weeks later, the High Commissioner for Hu

man Rights and a collaboration of Special Rapportuersboth eventually called on China to receive a special factfinding mission, to which China denied admission untila later time (UN News Centre, 10 April 2008, UN experts urge full access for independent observers, mediain Tibet. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/ news/story.asp?NewsID=26270&Cr=tibet&Cr1=. See also,UN News Centre, 14 March 2008, China: UN rights

chief voices concern over tensions in Tibet AutonomousRegion. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp? NewsID=25980&Cr=arbour&Cr1=).

Overall, this was an eye opening experienceabout the importance of fully taking into account theeconomic and political inequality between powerful nations and other nations, and the prominence of politicalinterests in human rights enforcement. NGOs have anextremely important role in that they are able to moreobjectively address issues that are of global concern andpressure states to undertake these concerns as well. Theexperience was invaluable, and it broadened my vision toview clearly the tremendous task human rights activistshave achieved and that remains to be carried out.

SAVE THE DATESaturday, October 25, 2008, 6 p.m.

Goldberg Room, Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley.

HRAS 30th Anniversary Celebration, includinga Tribute to the late Frances and Frank Newman,

and Dialogue on Racism and InternationalHuman Rights.

HRA is honored to present three distinguishedadvocates dedicated to protecting humanrights against racism.

Jose Lindgren Alves, Brazilian Ambassador,National Coordinator for the Alliance of Civilizations, expert of the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD),and recently appointed member of HRAs International Advisory Board, will speak about CERDs efforts to combat racism, including the intersection between racism and freedom of religion.

Sandra Coliver, Senior Legal Officer at theOpen Society Justice Initiative, former Executive Director of the Center for Justice and Accountability, co

founder of HRA, and dedicated member of HRAsNational Advisory Board for many years, will presenton hate speech, including speech that is perceived tobe insulting to religious sentiments.

Connie de la Vega, law professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, Director ofthe Frank C. Newman International Human RightsClinic, and cofounder and past President of HRA,will share her work using international human rightslaw to broaden the availability of affirmative action inthe U.S.


16/18H R A 16 V. 51

Frances Burks Newman died in Walnut Creek onWednesday, June 11, 2008, after a brief battle withpneumonia. Frannie, as she was known to her friends,was the widow of Frank C. Newman, Associate Justice(retired) of the California Supreme Court, and formerDean and Professor Emeritus of the University ofCalifornia School of Law at Berkeley (Boalt Hall).

Frannie was born on January 14, 1915 in LosAngeles, California to Jesse Burks and Frances WillistonBurks, and grew up in Berkeley and Palo Alto. As ayoung girl she was part of a study on gifted children thatwas conducted at Stanford University by Lewis Terman.Ironically, she later attended Stanford University on afull scholarship where she received her B.A. and M.A.in psychology in 1935 and 1936 respectively. Shegraduated Phi Beta Kappa and belonged to the KappaKappa Gamma sorority while at Stanford.

After graduating from Stanford, Frannie went towork at the Institute of Child Welfare at U.C. Berkeleywhile living at International House, resulting in lifelongconnections to both. It was during this time that she metFrank at a piano bar where he was playing to supporthis law studies at Boalt Hall. In addition to sharing apassion for music, they both enjoyed traveling.

Soon after their marriage on January 14, 1940,they headed off to New York, where Frank studied at

Columbia University and son Robert was born in 1942.In 1943, the family moved to Washington, D.C. whileFrank served during World War II as an officer in theU.S. Navys Office of General Counsel. Daughter Juliewas born there in 1945. In 1946, thegrowing family returned to Berkeley,where Frank joined the faculty and laterserved as Dean at Boalt Hall. The familyfinally settled in Orinda in 1950, whereson Ralph and daughter Holly were bornin 1952 and 1958 respectively. Franks

participation in various U.N. humanrights bodies led the family to Genevaseveral times over the years, where theyenjoyed hiking and skiing and formedenduring international friendships.

In 1971, at an age when mostcontemplate retirement, Franniespioneering spirit led her to a careeras a paralegal, a new profession thatwas first recognized by the AmericanBar Association just two years earlier.

She began as one of the first paralegals at the firm ofMorrison & Foerster, moving on to Hansen Bridgettand then to Shartsis Friese, where she retired in 1998after 23 years of service.

An avid singer, Frannie performed with choralgroups throughout her life, first as a member of theOakland Symphony Chorus, and later the UniversityChorus. She also continued traveling just a year ago,she toured the Columbia River between Washingtonand Oregon, and the year before cruised the DanubeRiver from Budapest to Bucharest. She also loved tospend time during the summers at her Echo Lake cabin,built by her family in 1925.

When Frank died in 1996, Frannie continued tosupport Human Rights Advocates, a nonprofit groupwith UN accreditation that was founded in 1978 byFrank and The Berkeley Crew, as he and his studentswere called at the UN in Geneva. She was instrumental innaming of the Frank C. Newman International HumanRights Law Clinic at the University of San Francisco inhis memory. As Boalt Hall Professor David Caron hasnoted, If Frank was the spirit of the group, then Franniewas its heart and she will be sorely missed.

Frannie is survived by daughter Holly and herhusband Richard Daniels of Petaluma, and long time friend J. Richard Johnston of Lafayette. A memorial service will

be held at 2 p.m. on Sunday, September 28, in the FacultyClub at UC Berkeley. The family encourages memorialcontributions to Human Rights Advocates or the Frank C.Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic at USF.

In Memory of Frances Burks Newman


17/18H R A 17 V. 51

H R A

P.O. Box 5675Berkeley

CA 94705

www.humanrightsadvocates.org

C VJ J

C Lz-BN Pp

J C TB Sz

K Z

Newsletter production: Philip Goldsmith

HRA Newsmakers

HRA Members Recognized

for their Commitment

to Human Rights

HRA Board Member Nicole Phillips has beenelected to serve as President of HRA. Ms. Phillips, a former Frank C. Newman intern, practices laborand environmental law at one of the largest unionsidelabor law firms in the county, Weinberg, Roger andRosenfeld. She also directs the Dominican Republicand Haiti Human Rights Programs at the Universityof San Francisco, School of Laws Center for Law andGlobal Justice. Since becoming a Board Member ofHRA in 2000, Ms. Phillips has trained students, prepared reports and advocated at the UN Commission onthe Status of Women, Committee on the Eliminationof Racial Discrimination and Human Rights Committee. HRA thanksJulianne Cartwright Traylor for herdedicated and accomplished eight years serving as President of HRA! Ms. Cartwright Traylor will remain anactive Board Member. In addition, Connie de la Vegawas elected Treasurer andJeremiah Johnson was elected Board Secretary.

Jose Lindgren Alves has recently been ap

pointed to HRAs International Advisory Board. Mr.LindgrenAlves has served as an Ambassador to Brazilfor decades, with assignments around the world, including five years in San Francisco and, most recently, Budapest, Hungary. Mr. LindgrenAlves represents Brazilas an expert on the UN Committee on the Eliminationof all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). Hehas recently returned to Brazil, where he serves as the

National Coordinator for the Alliance of Civilizations.HRA welcomes Ms. LindgrenAlves to the Board.

HRA National Advisory Board Member DinahShelton has recently been selected for the distinguishedposition of the Manatt/Ahn Chair of International Lawat George Washington University Law School. Professor Shelton is the author of two prizewinning books,Protecting Human Rights in the Americas (winner ofthe 1982 InterAmerican Bar Association Book Prizeand coauthored with Thomas Burgenthal) and Remedies in International Human Rights Law (awarded the2000 Certificate of Merit, American Society of International Law), as well as numerous other articles andbooks. In 2007 she received the Elizabeth Haub Prizefor Environmental Law, one of the few U.S. recipients toreceive the honor during the past three decades.

HRA International Advisory Board MemberEya Nchama Cruz Melchor has been appointed theOfficial Representative, Office of Human Rights,Deptartment of Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland,where he will work directly with human rights andfundamental liberties.

HRA wishes to recognize and thank thefollowing people for their generous donations:

Sandra Coliver and the Open Society Institute Mary Ann Hoisington (in memory of FrancesNewman)

Emily Rich (in memory of Frances Newman)

Last, but certainly not least, we wish to honor andthank the late Frances Newman and her daughter,Holly Newman, for their generous long termsupport of HRA, to which HRA owes many of itsaccomplishments.


18/18

MEMBERSHIP FORM

I want to become an HRA member to support HRAs activities and receive the Newsletter andannouncements of events. Enclosed is my check for annual dues, fully tax-deductible, in theamount of:

____ Regular Membership $35.00

____ Student or low-income (sliding scale available) $20.00

____ Other __$50.00 __ $75.00 __$100 __$125 $______

Name: ______________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________

City: ________________________ State: ____ Zip: ________________

Country: _____________________

Telephone: ___________________ Fax: _________________________

Email: _____________________________________________________

Profession/Affiliation: ________________________________________

HRA Committee Interest:

___ Education ___ United Nations ___ Litigation/Legislation

___ Publications ___ Fundraising/Finance

Please return this form to:

The Treasurer

HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

P.O. Box 5675

Berkeley, CA 94705

HRA is a non-profit public corporation with 501(c)(3) status; dues and contributions are tax-deductible.

human rights advocates summer 2008 vol51

Documents