08 Nov 2007 |
|
Download full document at the bottom of this article. INTRODUCTION In light of the recent decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 72 U.S.L.W. 4660 (June 29, 2004), amici curiae submit this brief in support of the Plaintiffs in this action. Amici include dozens of international human rights organizations throughout the world. Amici also include individuals who have figured prominently in efforts to ameliorate the lasting damage that the apartheid system inflicted upon its South African victims such as the Plaintiffs in this action. Among amici are the Chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa (“TRC”), Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and several TRC commissioners. The great promise of Sosa is the impetus for amici’s appearance. Though cautious in its approach, the Supreme Court made unmistakably clear in Sosa that the courthouse door is open to “private causes of action for certain torts in violation of the law of nations.” Sosa, 124 S. Ct. at 2761. The claims brought before this Court by the Khulumani Plaintiffs are cognizable under the Sosa standard. Indeed, recognizing thev validity of their claims would help define the contours of the Sosa holding and distinguish this “narrow class” of actionable “international norms,” id. at 2764, from the morally And although the Sosa Court expressed particular concern with respect to the position of the South African government vis-a-vis other “apartheid cases” pending in this Court, see id. at 2766 n.21, those concerns would be misplaced if directed to the limited, individualized relief sought The decisions made by this Court in this action will shape the future of human rights litigation. They will reverberate beyond the courthouse walls to the ears of official and private actors across the globe. What happens in Khulumani matters not only to the victims of torture and murder who are Plaintiffs in the case, it matters to such victims worldwide whose rights and interests the amici have dedicated their existence to vindicating. Amici believe that the principles outlined in the Sosa decision, carefully applied, will further not only the interests of the Plaintiffs in this case, but those of victims throughout the world whose fundamental human rights have been trampled. Plaintiffs in actions under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) often have no other avenue of relief. The vindication of their rights promotes healing, both for them and for their communities, with the official recognition that the deprivations they suffered are universally condemned. See Sosa, 124 S. Ct. 2783 (recognizing “universal jurisdiction over claims of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes”) (Breyer, J., concurring). These cases often break down the walls of silence and fear, enabling survivors of unspeakable atrocities to find dignity and composure. These are not mere bromides; they are the realities that have made up the lives of tens of thousands of people across the globe, including those before this very Court. The ATS embodies the United States’ most laudable aspirations as a member of the world community. It is with pride that the United States courts should embrace the Sosa decision and the hope it offers to the all-too-often hopeless. Amici do not seek sympathy for the victims of human rights violations; they seek justice. Sosa affords it. V. CONCLUSION The United States Supreme Court has held open the doors of the American court system to those, such as Plaintiffs here, who have suffered denial of the most fundamental and universally recognized human rights. Though the Court counseled caution in recognizing claims under the ATS, it did not in any way suggest that the lower courts ought to close the door to meritorious claims involving binding international norms. This is such a claim. Despite the current South African government’s legitimate concerns with respect to some claims pending before this Court, the Khulumani suit does not implicate those concerns. Careful consideration of these issues will set the standard of legal craftsmanship for future courts to emulate—one of enlightened fairness and basic justice, which is precisely the standard endorsed by Sosa.
|
