Publications
See more
UN/Government Submissions
06 February 2025
Submission to UN Special Rapporteur on Health — Healthcare Workers and the U.S. Abortion Rights Crisis
Health and care workers play an essential role in realizing the human right to health for all people globally. In fact, the right to “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” enshrined in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would be meaningless without health and care workers. As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, these individuals are “key protectors of the right to health” and should be protected as human rights defenders.
The Global Justice Center (GJC) submits the following information for consideration as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health prepares her report to the Human Rights Council, 59th Session, focusing on “health and care workers as key protectors of the right to health.” GJC applauds the Special Rapporteur for identifying the human rights of healthcare workers and their ability to protect the rights of others as strategic priorities.
Read more
Letters
17 January 2025
Letter: 100+ Organizations Oppose the Global Gag Rule
Link to original letter with list of signatories
We come together as international civil society organizations spanning a range of sectors and geographies to oppose the global gag rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) and call for a permanent end to this harmful policy. This policy prohibits U.S. assistance for critical global challenges to certain organizations if they provide, counsel, refer, or advocate for legal abortion services in their own country, even if these activities are protected by local law, despite being supported solely with non-U.S. funds. Since 1984, the policy has come and gone with changes in the U.S. presidency, leaving the health and lives of millions of people vulnerable to political whims.
As a result of this policy, lifesaving health services have been dismantled in communities around the world, many of which already face systematic barriers to care. Clinics have been forced to close, outreach efforts to underserved populations have been eliminated, and people have lost access to contraception and many other essential health services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies, more unsafe abortions, and more deaths. Implementing organizations who comply with the global gag rule face costly, risky, intensive administrative burdens that limit efficient program implementation and partner cooperation.
When in effect, the global gag rule restricts the medical information that health care providers can offer, limits free speech, and stifles local advocacy efforts by prohibiting people from participating in public policy debates. Numerous research studies over the course of decades and the direct experiences of organizations working in diverse settings demonstrate that the global gag rule impedes access to a range of health services – including reproductive, maternal and child health care, HIV prevention and treatment, tuberculosis, malaria and even some nutrition programs – by cutting off funding for experienced providers.
Even when the global gag rule is rescinded, the policy’s chilling effect persists due to fear that it will be reinstated by a future U.S. president. Even when presidents lift the global gag rule immediately upon taking office, high-quality health partners face long delays in resuming participation in U.S. global health programs. Permanent repeal of the policy is urgently needed to promote sustainable progress in global health and to build and maintain long-term partnerships between the U.S. government, local organizations, and the communities that they serve. We must end this destructive cycle of widespread fear and confusion that disrupts local advocacy efforts and long-standing partnerships, and undercuts the vital work of organizations on the ground. Ending the global gag rule for good would lift the threat of reinstatement and allow U.S.-funded programs to reach their full potential, thus ensuring that the needs and rights of people around the world are fulfilled.
We are in solidarity with those opposing the global gag rule and those harmed by it. Together, we call for urgent action to end this policy once and for all and to advance health, human rights, and gender equality across the globe.
Read more
Letters
06 January 2025
Open Letter to Congress and the Incoming Presidential Administration Regarding US Sanctions on the ICC
Link to original letter with list of signatories
To Members of the 119th Congress and the incoming Presidential Administration of Donald J. Trump:
The undersigned organizations write to express grave concerns and to unequivocally oppose the use of the sanctions authority of the United States to attack the International Criminal Court (ICC), an independent judicial institution dedicated to combating impunity for the gravest crimes known to humanity.
The ICC performs a vital role in international affairs by investigating the worst international crimes that shock the collective conscience of humanity and investigating those accused of committing those crimes. It does so in a manner that protects the due process rights of the accused, the sovereignty of states, including the United States, and the rights of victims. As has been widely observed, supporting the work of the Court is in the interest of the United States, and sanctioning it, conversely, undermines important US interests. The positive role of the ICC has been recognized through previous bipartisan support for investigations into war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Russian officials in the Ukraine conflict (S.Res.531 and H.Res.963), attempts to bring justice for the victims of gross human rights violations in Myanmar, and as a pathway to accountability for perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan.
Many of the undersigned spoke out when the previous Trump administration subjected two senior ICC officials to sanctions and travel restrictions. At that time, we cautioned that it was “uniquely dangerous, extreme, and unprecedented to utilize a mechanism designed to penalize criminals, their aiders, and abettors, against an independent judicial institution.” The previous sanctions against the Prosecutor and a member of her team raised serious concerns about the ICC’s ability to fulfill its mandate, including the Prosecutor’s obligation to report to the UN Security Council on the situations in Darfur and Libya, and to participate in the annual meetings of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), the ICC’s oversight management and legislative body, where the US participates as an Observer.
In 2024, the House of Representatives passed the so-called “Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act.” Although the bill’s full scope was ambiguous, the legislative intent was to punish foreign persons who aid, materially assist, or provide financial support for efforts by the ICC to undertake certain investigations and prosecutions. The Biden administration strongly opposed the bill and the previous Senate did not vote on the legislation. As human rights, legal, and faith-based organizations, the foundations of civil society, as well as individuals who have dedicated their careers to these causes, we decry attempts to attack an independent judicial institution and urge the 119th Congress and incoming administration to reconsider this misguided position.
Asset freezes and entry restrictions are tools intended to combat individuals and entities constituting a threat to US national security, such as kleptocrats committing grand corruption, gross human rights offenders, and perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. By applying these measures to a court that 125 countries – and on two occasions, the United Nations Security Council – have entrusted with providing accountability for atrocity crimes, the United States has brought upon itself the stigma of siding with impunity over justice. In fact, Russia sanctioned some of the court’s judges last year, and the United States should not similarly adopt such vindictive tools. Such actions jeopardize the ability of desperate victims across all the court’s investigations to access justice, weaken the credibility of sanction tools in other contexts, and place the United States at odds with its closest allies.
The ICC represents and constitutes part of a global system of international justice of which the United States was a chief architect at Nuremberg and beyond. Today, the ICC, alongside other tribunals, regional mechanisms, and national courts, is carrying forward these efforts through investigations and prosecutions that could help realize justice for atrocity victims from Sudan to Myanmar to Ukraine. As a court of last resort, the ICC only can intervene when and where a State has demonstrated unwillingness or inability to hold its nationals to account for crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction. The ICC therefore provides an essential backstop for victims who have no other recourse to justice. The use of sanctions has the potential for wide-reaching impact against this institution dedicated to advancing justice for victims.
The proposed sanctions were prompted by the arrest warrants issued on November 21, 2024, for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Practically, sanctioning the court or its officials would halt its work across all situations that are under its purview, including those critically important to the United States, such as the situation in Ukraine and in Sudan. US citizens who represent victims and survivors also could be implicated for their work to help achieve justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. The idea that justice can be selectively used to advance geopolitical concerns is a moral affront to all those who are in peril and an abrogation of the universality of human rights. An attack on the ICC in one situation is an attack on the rule of law itself.
At an historical moment when the global rule of law is under attack from multiple fronts, institutions like the International Criminal Court are needed more than ever to advance human rights protections and the universal goal of preventing future atrocities and advancing justice for victims. Instead, sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice. It is essential that the United States answer any allegation of wrongdoing in a manner that does not betray the cause of global justice, abandon international cooperation, or compromise support for human dignity and rights.
It would be a terrible irony if a tool designed to penalize gross violators of human rights could instead contribute to their continued impunity. We urge other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC. We invite allies of justice to join us in standing against these destructive measures.
Read more
Legal Filings
22 October 2024
Amicus Brief — United States v. Idaho (October 2024)
Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act” (“Act” or “Idaho’s Law”), a near-total abortion ban, restricts access to necessary emergency reproductive healthcare, exacerbating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and otherwise negatively impacting pregnant people. The law’s narrow exception for life-saving care will not prevent or mitigate these harms and will leave patients without access to emergency reproductive healthcare. The United States has ratified several human rights treaties that require it to guarantee access to safe and legal reproductive health services, in particular in emergencies or acute medical crises governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”). Under these treaties, the U.S. is required to respect, protect and fulfil the rights to life; freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; non-discrimination; and privacy. Idaho’s draconian abortion law fails to respect these rights and violates the U.S.’s treaty obligations. This violation of the U.S.’s treaty obligations militates in favor of affirming the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. Causing the U.S. to violate its international obligations will result in irreparable harm and is not in the public interest.
Read more
UN/Government Submissions
13 June 2024
Statement: US House Hearing on Liberia War Crimes Court
Download full statement
House Foreign Affairs Committee
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Hearing on
Liberia: Next Steps Towards Accountability for War & Economic Crimes
June 13, 2024 – 10:30 a.m.
2360 Rayburn House Office Building
STATEMENT
Submitted by
The Advocates for Human RightsCenter for Justice and AccountabilityCivil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform)CIVITAS MAXIMACoalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in LiberiaGlobal Justice and Research ProjectGlobal Justice CenterHuman Rights WatchSecretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia
Delivered by
Liz EvensonInternational Justice DirectorHuman Rights Watch
Many thanks for the opportunity to brief the commission. I am Liz Evenson, and I direct the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses in some 100 countries around the world. We direct our advocacy towards governments, armed groups and businesses, pushing them to change or enforce their laws, policies and practices. And we work globally to champion meaningful and fair justice for victims and survivors of atrocity crimes, before national and international courts.
My statement today is presented on behalf of Human Rights Watch, together with The Advocates for Human Rights; Center for Justice and Accountability; Civil Society Human Rights Advocacy Platform of Liberia (CSO Platform); CIVITAS MAXIMA; Coalition for the Establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia; Global Justice and Research Project; Global Justice Center; and the Secretariat for the Establishment of War Crimes Court in Liberia. This group represents American, Liberian, and international organizations all working together to bring justice to Liberian citizens.
Together our groups have been advocating for the establishment of a Liberian-led war crimes court in Liberia to address the legacy of impunity for the widespread and systematic violations of international human rights and humanitarian law[1] that characterized the country’s two brutal armed conflicts, which took place between 1989 and 2003. Liberian men, women, and children were gunned down in their homes, marketplaces, and places of worship. In a few cases hundreds of civilians[2] were massacred in a matter of hours. Girls and women were subjected to horrific sexual violence[3] including gang-rape, sexual slavery, and torture. Children were abducted from their homes and schools and pressed into service, often after witnessing the murder of their parents. The violence blighted the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced almost half the population.
While there have been a number of important criminal and civil cases outside of Liberia—and these cases have contributed to momentum within the country for justice[4]—to date not a single person has faced criminal investigation or prosecution in Liberia for serious crimes committed during the civil wars.In its 2009 final report, the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the creation of an extraordinary criminal court[5] which would be a hybrid court composed of Liberian and international judges, prosecutors and other staff with a mandate to try those allegedly responsible for committing serious crimes. A legislative conference to talk about accountability was organized in Monrovia in 2019 with the legislature of Liberia, a Liberian coalition of NGOs, and international partners.[6]
There is now renewed momentum after nearly two decades for the establishment of a court. Most recently, in March and April of 2024, the Liberian Senate and House of Representatives passed a resolution supporting the creation of a war and economic crimes court. On May 2, 2024, President Joseph Boakai signed an executive order[7] establishing an Office of the War and Economic Crimes Court for Liberia.
The US government has played a critical role in advancing progress. US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack has repeatedly voiced the US government’s partnership with Liberia in its journey to justice. Her commitments on behalf of the US government to support this process have been widely welcomed within Liberia. Members of Congress have also expressed their support for this court and justice for the Liberian people.[8]
These developments are promising, and yet there is much work ahead that will need the support of the United States and others in the international community. Making Liberian-led justice a reality in Liberia requires sustained attention from justice champions in and outside of Liberia.
What is needed now is for President Boakai’s administration to translate its stated commitment to a war crimes court into concrete steps for the court’s creation.
We have made the following recommendations to the government of Liberia:
Establish the Office proposed by President Boakai to be responsible for developing and implementing a concrete plan to establish a war and economic crimes court to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account, consistent with international standards and practice and ensure this plan is consistent with a victim-centered approach, including consultation with affected communities on the design of the court;
Establish an independent committee comprised of government officials, a member of the Independent National Commission of Human Rights, international legal experts, and Liberian and international civil society actors from various sectors that is mandated to advise the government on the court’s creation. The committee should help establish a roadmap on the way forward for ensuring justice for war crimes and for strengthening the rule of law;
Request assistance from the United Nations, African Union, Economic Community of West African States, and other international and regional partners as needed;
Ensure a war crimes court for Liberia includes key elements in order to achieve trials that would be fair, meaningful, and credible:Composition of judicial benches that will have sufficient independence and expertise by including a majority of international judges on each trial and appeals bench;No bars on prosecution of individuals on the basis of their cooperation with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission;Inclusion of crimes and modes of liability in line with international standards;Fair trial protections;Witness protection and support;Involvement of victims of abuses in proceedings; and
Outreach and communications that inform the victims and public.
Work with the legislature to ensure the war crimes court established to hold perpetrators of grave crimes committed during Liberia’s armed conflicts to account is consistent with international standards and practice;
Request from international partners adequate support and funding, for programs designed to improve Liberia’s judiciary and criminal justice system, to ensure an effective war crimes court and victims’ access to justice and the right of the accused to a fair trial;
Continue to support efforts by third countries to bring universal jurisdiction cases for civil war-era crimes, including by continuing to fully cooperate with foreign authorities who request authorization to come to Liberia to investigate international crimes;
Develop and implement a comprehensive reparations scheme for all victims of gross human rights violations and war crimes;
Ensure protection for human rights defenders inside Liberia against attacks and intimidation, and bring to justice those who intimidate or attack human rights defenders.
The process and the work of the court itself must be Liberian-led. This means primarily that Liberians who were impacted by the civil wars and have long advocated for accountability have a leading voice in determining the court’s trajectory. Liberian experts should also fill key positions in the judiciary, prosecution, defense, and registry. Liberian ownership of the court is crucial to build and maintain local support for accountability processes. Ensuring the court benefits from Liberian experts will also ensure that investing in the court strengthens the domestic justice system, leading to long-term benefits across Liberian institutions. The first step towards ensuring that the court is Liberian-led is making sure that Liberians and regional experts play critical roles in the creation of the court.
Liberian civil society has been advocating for accountability in Liberia at great personal risk. Powerful actors opposed to accountability for wartime atrocities and former warlords hold positions of power in Liberia, and international actors have also at times worked to undermine their efforts. As a result, members of civil society have received threats to their security and their work over the years. These threats continue to this day. It is imperative that international partners, including the United States government, continue to support Liberian civil society organizations and the crucial work they are doing to see accountability in Liberia for civil war-era atrocities.
High-level messages from Liberia’s international and regional partners in support of a court are also needed to maintain positive momentum. Liberia should request international and regional support to help it to determine the best legal and structural modalities for the court’s creation in a manner that will enable fair, credible functioning and partners should pledge international support and expertise based on accumulated experience.
We recommend that the US Congress:
Make clear its support to a Liberian-led process to achieve justice in the country through the creation of a credible war crimes court, and support to Liberian civil society organizations engaged in this effort;
Provide the requested support to the Liberian government and civil society organizations working on behalf of justice, including assistance in developing the necessary legislation and systems for the protection of victims and witnesses, support in the legal representation of victims, and processes to engage meaningfully with the public and victims and survivors to create awareness of the objectives of a war crimes court and to allow Liberian voices to inform the design of the court;
Offer financial support for the court, as the US has done in several other contexts, including, for example, the annual contributions to the Special Criminal Court in the Central African Republic.
[1] Human Rights Watch, Q&A: Justice for Civil Wars-Era Crimes in Liberia (April 1, 2019), https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/01/qa-justice-civil-wars-era-crimes-liberia.
[2] Jane W, John X, John Y, John Z v. Moses Thomas, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case number 2:18-cv-00569-PBT, https://cja.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Jane-W-v.-Moses-Thomas-18-cv-00569.pdf.
[3] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, https://www.trcofliberia.org/resources/reports/final/trc-final-report-volume-1-full.pdf.
[4] Civitas Maxima press release, US Court finds Liberian Rebel Commander “Jungle Jabbah” Guilty of Crimes Linked to Atrocities in Liberia’s First Civil War (October 18, 2017), https://civitas-maxima.org/us-court-finds-liberian-rebel-commander-jungle-jabbah-guilty-of-crimes-linked-to-atrocities-in-liberias-first-civil-war/; Civitas Maxima press release, Liberian Plaintiffs Make Swiss and Liberian Legal History (June 18, 2021), https://civitas-maxima.org/liberian-plaintiffs-make-swiss-and-liberian-legal-history/; Center for Justice and Accountability press release, U.S. Court Finds Former Liberian Military Commander Liable for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (September 16, 2021), https://cja.org/u-s-court-finds-former-liberian-military-commander-liable-for-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/.
[5] Human Rights Watch news release, Justice for Liberia, (December 10, 2009), https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/12/10/justice-liberia.
[6] University of Nottingham, SEWACCOL, Legislature of Liberia, Civitas Maxima and the GJRP press release, Legislative Conference Brings Liberia Closer to the Establishment of a War Crimes Court (July 20, 2019), https://civitas-maxima.org/legislative-conference-brings-liberia-closer-to-the-establishment-of-a-war-crimes-court/.
[7] Dounard Bondo and Ruth Maclean, The New York Times, Liberia Moves to Create War Crimes Court, Decades After Civil Wars Ended (May 3, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/world/africa/liberia-court-war-crimes.html.
[8] United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations press release, Risch Applauds Establishment of War and Economic Crimes Court in Liberia (April 10, 2024), https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/risch-applauds-establishment-of-war-and-economic-crimes-court-in-liberia.
Read more
Letters
22 May 2024
Joint NGO Letter to President Biden on the International Criminal Court
Dear President Biden:
We write as organizations with a steadfast commitment to justice for grave international crimes and therefore to the success of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We urge your administration to oppose the threats and calls for punitive actions against the Court that several U.S. lawmakers have recently made. Acting on these calls would do grave harm to the interests of all victims globally and to the U.S. government’s ability to champion human rights and the cause of justice, which are stated priorities of your administration.
Accountability is important for its own sake and protects against the commission of future atrocity crimes. Acting where it has jurisdiction and within its mandate as a court of last resort, the ICC works together with national authorities to ensure perpetrators of such crimes are held to account and that victims and affected communities find some measure of justice. While the United States is not an ICC member country, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the Court in specific cases, and the U.S. has assisted arrest operations to bring justice to victims in central Africa. Your own administration has recognized the Court’s essential role to address serious crimes in Ukraine and Darfur.
We are alarmed by threats that U.S. lawmakers have aimed at the Court in recent weeks including the letter sent on April 24 by Senators, threatening to sanction the ICC prosecutor’s “employees and associates,” if steps were taken to pursue arrest warrants against Israeli officials. On May 20, the ICC prosecutor requested warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israeli officials stemming from his ongoing Palestine investigation; ICC judges will assess the request to determine whether to issue warrants.
Read more
Legal Filings
28 March 2024
Idaho v. United States — Amicus Brief
Summary of Argument
Idaho’s near-total abortion ban restricts access to necessary emergency reproductive healthcare, exacerbating preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and otherwise negatively impacting people capable of pregnancy in Idaho. The law’s narrow exception for life-saving care will not prevent or mitigate these harms in practice, and will leave patients in Idaho without access to emergency reproductive healthcare.
The United States has ratified several human rights treaties—including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—which require it to guarantee access to safe and legal abortion services, in particular in emergencies or acute medical crises governed by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). In accordance with the United States’ obligations under these treaties, the federal government—and therefore each state—is required to respect, protect and fulfil individuals’ international human rights to life; health; privacy; non-discrimination; and to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. These rights are directly jeopardized by Idaho’s draconian abortion law.
Read more
Advocacy Resources
30 October 2023
In Geneva, United States Dodges Key Questions on its Abortion Rights Record
On October 17-18 in Geneva, the United States government faced questions from civil society and the Human Rights Committee on the country’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In addition to questions on immigrants’ rights, racial discrimination, and more, US officials were pressed repeatedly on the state of abortion access in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Read more
Fact Sheets
17 October 2023
How the Dobbs Ruling Put the United States in Violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The June 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated federal constitutional protection for access to abortion in the United States. Following Dobbs, more than a dozen states fully banned abortion, and many others passed or proposed increased restrictions. On October 17-18, 2023, the Human Rights Committee will review US compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the impact of Dobbs on its human rights obligations.
Read more