Over the past 20 years, following periods of armed conflict or authoritarian rule, countries in Latin America have struggled with the issue of justice for serious human rights violations. Before or during democratic transitions, various countries passed amnesty laws designed to "promote national reconciliation," which they justified as necessary to avoid military unrest and ensure a stable peace. Some of these were clearly self-amnesties (as for instance in Chile and Peru). During the same period, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Peru established truth commissions as a mechanism to address massive human rights violations in the recent past. Although none of these commissions was established to be an "alternative to justice," they have sometimes come to be seen in that light.

While not historically far removed from periods of extreme political violence - characterized by cases of torture, extra-judicial executions (often on a massive scale) and forced disappearances - most Latin American countries now consider themselves to be firmly committed to the protection of human rights. This does not mean, however, that they are willing to seek justice on behalf of victims of past human rights violations or that impunity no longer reigns.

Roll over image EL SALVADOR. La Joya. October 2001. Pedro Chicas, a survivor of the El Mozote massacre, watches the ongoing recovery of remains from the grave, feet away from where once stood his house in 1981. Despite the amnesty law, relatives of the victims of the El Mozote massacre from 1981 and other incidents of human rights violations in El Salvador continue to demand further investigations. But no prosecutions will take place because amnesty laws still hold. EL SALVADOR. Jocoaitique. December 2001. Pedro Chicas and his family at their house posing for a photograph they requested to have taken during the vigil of Pedro’s brother, Anastasio Chicas and his two nephews, Jacobo and Justiano Chicas Martinez. On the front row are, David, Rosa, Santos, Pedro, Ana, Valerio, Noé and Carmen. Photos © Pedro Linger Gasiglia

Limiting the Scope of Amnesty

In El Salvador, a blanket amnesty law and strict statutes of limitations have been invoked to preclude criminal prosewcutions for past human rights violations. In some other countries, however, courts have begun to limit the scope of amnesty laws, and, in some cases, have found statutes of limitations inapplicable to certain crimes.

These efforts have been supported by the Inter-American system of human rights. The Inter-American Court and Commission have categorically rejected as contrary to the American Convention on Human Rights the application of amnesty laws to cases involving serious violations of human rights.[i] According to Douglass Cassel, the "strong and coherent rhetoric" of the Inter-American Court and Commission has made clear that: "impunity for serious violations of human rights in the range of forms experienced by people of the Americas, violates the duties of states and the rights of victims, established in the regional human rights pact."[ii] Moreover, the regional system of human rights protection has issued important decisions that, in some countries, have led to renewed investigations and reparations for victims.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also established that government recognition of responsibility, investigations carried out by truth commissions and even reparations are not a substitute for the State's obligation to use its justice system to investigate, prosecute, and sanction, or effectively punish, those responsible for serious violations of human rights.[iii] The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have called on states to bring their domestic legislation into conformity with the American Convention on Human Rights, rendering "null and void" broad amnesty laws.

National courts in a number of countries have issued rulings limiting the effects of amnesty laws and even finding them unconstitutional. The Honduran Supreme Court has issued two important rulings, first finding that amnesty could not be granted before the judiciary had adequately investigated the case, and subsequently ruling that the Constitution does not permit amnesty decrees that include common crimes committed by members of the military, as these could not be considered to be related to political crimes.[iv]

Guatemala's National Reconciliation Law (1996) specifically limited the potential benefits of amnesty, excluding the crimes of genocide, forced disappearance and torture, and crimes not subject to a statute of limitations according to applicable international and Guatemalan law.[v] Guatemala's Historical Clarification Commission explicitly called for prosecutions in the cases exempted from the amnesty law, and human rights groups working closely with victims, in a very difficult context, have sought to encourage state investigations of those most responsible for these crimes.[vi] Prosecutions of those responsible for serious human rights violations in Guatemala have encountered numerous obstacles, including threats and attacks against lawyers, witnesses, and judges, and arbitrary appellate decisions overturning the few convictions handed down.

In recent years, courts in Argentina have applied the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system to find amnesty laws null and void. Argentina has been in the forefront of the struggle against impunity, with trials of military leaders starting in 1985, eventually halted by the "impunity laws"- the ley de punto final and the ley de obediencia debida passed in 1986 and 1987 - followed by President Menem's 1990 pardon of those convicted. Just this year, the Argentine legislature abrogated these laws in the context of renewed attempts to seek justice in Argentina. Federal judges had already applied international human rights law to rule that these laws were null and void.[vii] A Supreme Court decision remains pending.

In addition to annulling the "impunity laws," the Argentine legislators voted to give constitutional status to the UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Not surprisingly, Argentina has been deeply involved in the effort to establish the ICC. Indeed, the ICC's first prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, comes from Argentina and served as deputy prosecutor in Argentina's successful trials of the military juntas.

On September 24, 1992, Shining Path leader Abimael Guzmán was allowed to make a public appearance while in custody of DINCOTE, the government’s antiterrorism task force. In front of more than 100 domestic and foreign journalists, Guzmán gave a speech and sang the Internationale, the Communist anthem. Photograph by Ana Cecilia Gonzalez Vigil.

Efforts to seek justice for crimes of the past are also underway in Chile, partly in response to the Pinochet case, and in Peru. In March 2001, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled that Peru's sweeping 1995 amnesty law, designed to shield the military from prosecution, could not be a bar to the investigation and prosecution of members of the Peruvian military implicated in the murder of 15 people (the Barrios Altos case), because the blanket amnesty law violated the American Convention on Human Rights.[viii] After the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its decision in the Barrios Altos case, the Peruvian Supreme Court ordered a reopening of the investigation of that case, which had been dismissed based on Peru's 1995 amnesty law.

Peru's Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its report on August 28, 2003, rejecting the possibility of amnesty and calling on the State to move forward with prosecutions. The TRC "exhorts the State powers not to use amnesties, pardons or other presidential benefits discretionally, but only within the strict framework established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The TRC has been and is against any kind of legal pardon through which the search for truth and the satisfactions of justice are subordinated to reasons of State."[ix] Unlike the truth commissions in Central America, the Peruvian TRC turned over selected cases to the prosecutor's office for trial in the national justice system.

Throughout the region, efforts to prosecute those responsible for thousands of disappearances, massacres and extra-judicial executions, and acts of torture have led to few convictions, with most governments and justice systems showing little or no political will to undertake prosecutions or find ways to overcome legal challenges. Nonetheless, over the past ten years, support has weakened for the proposition that broad amnesties that preclude justice for serious violations of human rights are a pre-condition for peace and stability. Instead, findings that blanket amnesty laws violate the American Convention on Human Rights and national constitutions are increasingly common. In the Latin American context, it has also become increasingly clear that truth commissions are not and should not be considered a substitute for justice.

From top: In July 1985, relatives of missing people gave testimony before the European Human Rights Commission at City Hall in Huamanga, Ayacucho. Photograph by Ernesto Jiménez In August 1984, 50 corpses, with evident signs of torture, were found in mass graves in Pucayacu, Huancavelica. Further investigation found that the government forces in control of Huanta, Ayacucho were responsible for the deaths. Photograph from Caretas magazine

Countries in the region that have been unwilling to embrace the concept of justice for past violations of human rights have shown themselves more willing to take on new commitments to ensure international justice in the future. For example, within the context of democratic transitions, a number of countries have finally recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights to address future human rights violations.[x]

The debate over ratification of the ICC statute has taken place against this background of state-sanctioned impunity, efforts by new democratic governments to demonstrate that they are complying with human rights norms, the developing Inter-American jurisprudence related to impunity, and NGOs dissatisfied with official responses to past atrocities. Countries that have been unwilling to address past human rights violations have ratified the ICC Statute, thus affirming that similar cases occurring in the future may fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC (although past cases would not). To date, 12 Latin American countries have signed and ratified the Rome Treaty: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and Uruguay. In South America, only Chile has not yet ratified the ICC Statute. Central America lags behind: El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and their larger neighbor to the north, Mexico, still have not ratified.

The governments of Chile, El Salvador, and Mexico have proposed constitutional reforms as a prerequisite to ratification of the Rome Statute. Mexico has signed the Rome Statute, and the Senate passed a constitutional reform, proposed by the Fox Administration, in December 2002. This reform still needs to be approved by the Chamber of Deputies and a majority of the Mexican states.

In some countries, constitutional reforms have been proposed or enacted to avoid any potential conflict with the Constitution, while in others, the constitutional issues have become an excuse for a political decision not to move forward with ratifications. In Nicaragua, ratification is simply not on the political agenda.

Latin American countries have debated various issues in considering their adherence to the Rome Statute. These include issues of national sovereignty; whether surrender or transfer to the ICC can be distinguished from the often constitutionally prohibited extradition of a country's nationals; whether constitutionally guaranteed governmental immunity protections pose an obstacle to ratification of the ICC statute; and whether the possibility of life sentences under the ICC statute poses a constitutional problem given that life sentences are not permitted under many Latin American constitutions.

In some countries, the Constitutional Court or Chamber has issued a ruling regarding the compatibility of the Rome Statute with provisions of the national Constitution. The Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court, a leader in the application of international human rights norms, cited its own jurisprudence to the effect that "with respect to human rights, international instruments are given not just a value similar to the Constitution, but to the extent that they provide greater rights or guarantees to people, take priority over the Constitution."[xi] Addressing the issue of life imprisonment (cadena perpetua), the Constitutional Chamber held:

[T]o proceed with the transfer of persons sought by the International Criminal Court, this transfer would have to take into account not only the nationality of the persons sought, but also determine that the potential sentence that could be imposed if the persons were found responsible for the acts attributed to him or her could not be life in prison or other sentences such as capital punishment that are not established in the Costa Rican legal order.[xii]

With this interpretation from the Constitutional Chamber, the Rome Statute was enacted into Costa Rican law on January 3, 2001.

Colombia's Constitutional Tribunal, another leader in applying international human rights norms, also reviewed the Rome Statute, leading to a constitutional amendment that explicitly authorizes the Colombian ratification and states that "the admission of a different treatment of guarantees contained in the Constitution in substantive matters under the Rome Statute will only have effect with respect to matters regulated by that Statute."(Article 93)

The Honduran Supreme Court also endorsed ratification of the Rome Statute, addressing the issues of extradition versus transfer, immunities, and ne bis in idem (the principle that no one should be tried twice for the same offense). At the Executive's request, Guatemala's Constitutional Court issued an opinion finding no constitutional impediment to ratification of the Rome Statute. Nonetheless, and apparently because of resistance from key political sectors, Guatemala has yet to sign or ratify the ICC Statute. Chile's Constitutional Tribunal has ruled that without constitutional reforms, some provisions of the ICC Statute would violate tenets of the Chilean Constitution.[xiii]

Even those countries that have ratified in Latin America have been slow to adopt implementing legislation, particularly in comparison to European countries. As Latin American countries review their legislation, however, important proposals are being discussed that would enshrine international law protections into national norms. These include moving towards eliminating the statute of limitations for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, forced disappearance, summary and extra-judicial executions, and other crimes included in international treaties. Similarly, specific provisions have been proposed to establish that crimes against humanity and war crimes are not subject to amnesties or pardons. As Latin American countries move towards passing reforms to allow implementation of the ICC Statute, they have an unprecedented opportunity to bring their legislation into line with current understandings of international criminal law.

Colombia, the only country in the region with an ongoing armed conflict, presents the most complicated case and the most likely for imminent ICC action in Latin America. Upon ratifying the Rome Statute, the government of former president Andrés Pastrana stated that: "None of the provisions of the Rome Statute about the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court impedes the concession of amnesties or pardons for political crimes by the Colombian State, providing that these benefits are awarded in conformity with the Constitution and the principles and norms of international law accepted by Colombia."[xiv] President Pastrana's successor, Alvaro Uribe, is currently proposing an amnesty arrangement for paramilitary forces that renounce the armed struggle and "cooperate in the peace process."

Upon ratifying the ICC statute, the Pastrana government invoked Article 124 so that the ICC would not have jurisdiction over "war crimes"allegedly committed by its nationals or in its territory for a period of seven years. Legislators, human rights defenders, and Colombia's Attorney General have called on the current government to overturn its predecessor's decision to invoke Article 124. However, because most war crimes committed in Colombia are widespread or systematic and target civilians, they would also be considered crimes against humanity. The Colombian government cannot foreclose the possibility of ICC jurisdiction for crimes against humanity committed since the date of Colombia's accession to the ICC Statute.[xv]

Colombian peace negotiators have long maintained that a broad amnesty will be required to end that country's decades-long armed conflict. Those responsible for extra-judicial executions, torture, forced disappearances, and kidnappings range from right-wing paramilitaries, who have essentially carried out the military's dirty work in recent years, to left-wing guerrilla groups and members of the armed forces. President Uribe's proposed amnesty legislation establishes a novel scheme under which members of armed groups would receive suspended sentences after demobilizing and "contributing effectively to national peace."[xvi] The proposed law would have judges suspend sentences when the person is a member of an "Organized Armed Group Outside the Law"that has declared a ceasefire and is participating actively in a peace process or is an individual who has voluntarily given up the armed struggle; the convicted person has promised not to commit further crimes and has promised to carry out acts that contribute effectively to the reparation of victims, ending the conflict and achieving peace.

Individuals granted suspended sentences would also be required to undertake some action that would either contribute to reparation to victims, ending the conflict or achieving national peace. Judicial oversight would last only five years. Alternative sentences include a bar from seeking elective office, serving as a public functionary, carrying arms, living or going to certain places, geographical restrictions, restrictions on getting near or communicating with victims. These individuals would also be obliged to carry out symbolic acts of contrition, such as compensating victims, turning over land, or paying fines.

With this proposal, which was presented at a time when there is no ongoing peace process in Colombia, the Uribe government seeks to assure paramilitary forces that their demobilization will be rewarded by a promise that they will not have to spend any time in prison. According to Human Rights Watch:

There are no provisions in the bill to ensure impartial investigations or serious prosecutions. There are no incentives that would compel the accused to tell the truth about crimes, particularly if government officials or military officers still on active duty are implicated. There are also no mechanisms proposed that would allow victims of atrocities to appeal the president's decision to designate who would qualify for release from any sentence.[xvii]

The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia issued a press release noting that the proposed law opens the door to impunity and "allows the State to apply alternative sentences to those responsible for international crimes; because the alternative sentences are excessively light, they violate democratic principles of just retribution and proportionality in criminal sanctions."The High Commissioner's office also noted deficiencies in the plan for reparations, which does not adequately protect victims' rights.[xviii] This statement noted that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts that constitute genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Colombia.

The United States government has also reportedly expressed some reservations about the proposed alternative sentencing law. Its primary concern is that drug traffickers might be able to take advantage of such a law and seek to avoid extradition to the United States. The paramilitaries and guerrilla groups have been linked to drug trafficking in Colombia. To avoid this situation, the United States urged the Colombian government to ensure that the charges against beneficiaries of the law be based on specific facts rather than generalities. In line with other critics, the U.S. recommended that victims be given a role in the process and that the sentences imposed should be proportional to the damage caused.[xix]

The issue of complementarity will be paramount in Colombia, which has a justice system that appears to function, although impunity remains the rule. Should this amnesty proposal - or something like it - be enacted into law, it is likely that the ICC prosecutor would have to decide whether to respect such an amnesty agreement as barring prosecution of crimes otherwise within the ICC's jurisdiction. (Of course, such a question would only arise in the case of crimes committed after Colombia's accession, since the Court's jurisdiction is not retrospective.)

The Rome Statute does not specify the conditions under which the ICC will respect an amnesty agreement, and Colombia cannot guarantee that the amnesty it proposes will withstand international scrutiny. According to Article 17 of the Rome Statute, a case that is being or has been investigated by a State Party can only be heard by the ICC if "the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution."The Statute explains that in determining unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider whether proceedings were undertaken or a national decision made "for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court," whether the proceedings were or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and whether "they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice." Complementarity refers to criminal investigations only.[xx]

In discussing amnesty agreements, legal scholars have sought to distinguish the more rigorous and individualized South African amnesty, which required hearings and confessions, from other procedures. [xxi] No country in Latin America has attempted to reproduce such a model, granting amnesty to those who admitted their crimes in a Truth Commission hearing process. While the current Colombian proposal adopts the individualized determinations of the South African amnesty, its requirements are far less stringent in terms of demanding a full account of the individual's involvement in crimes and a clear political motive. The proposed Colombian model could be implemented outside a recognized peace or truth and justice process. While calling for an individualized judicial determination, it focuses more on the individual's future commitment to peace than on discovering the truth, establishing whether the crime committed had a political motivation, and protecting victims' rights, much less carrying out a criminal investigation. It ignores the words of former President Pastrana who spelled out limitations on potential amnesties. It also ignores the jurisprudence of the Inter-American human rights system and the increasingly accepted principle prohibiting amnesty for international crimes.

U.S. antipathy to the International Criminal Court has had a substantial impact in much of Latin America, given the level of U.S. presence and influence. Central America remains highly dependent on the United States, with Colombia by far the leading recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance in the region. In recent months, the United States has insisted on bilateral "impunity agreements," ensuring that U.S. personnel will not be surrendered or transferred without the authorization of the United States to the International Criminal Court both from countries that have ratified the Rome Treaty and from countries that have not. Those who do not accede to the U.S. demand risk losing military assistance. Recently, five million dollars in military assistance for Colombia (out of a total of $130 million for the year) was temporarily withheld, until Colombia agreed to such a provision.

In a region that inevitably looks north, the U.S. rejection of the International Criminal Court has its impact. The U.S. insistence on bilateral impunity agreements, enforced by a suspension of U.S. military assistance, clearly undermines the effort to establish a strong Court. Over the objections of human rights advocates and, often, opposition parties, governments in a number of countries throughout the region have given in to U.S. pressure. Countries such as El Salvador and Nicaragua that have not signed or ratified the ICC Statute have signed bilateral impunity agreements with the United States, as have some States Parties (e.g., Bolivia, Colombia, and Honduras).

Overcoming the objections to ratification in the remaining Latin American countries may be the least difficult hurdle to full implementation of the ICC in Latin America. Ensuring adequate implementing legislation in the different countries and ICC jurisdiction over cases in Colombia pose far greater challenges, as do the general climate of impunity for serious violations of human rights, and the continuing U.S. effort to undermine the Court.

[i] Douglass Cassel, "La lucha contra la impunidad ante el sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos," in Juan E. Méndez, Martín Abregú, Javier Mariezcurrena, eds., Verdad y Justicia. Homenaje a Emilio F. Mignone (San José, Costa Rica: Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 2001), 357.

[ii] Ibid., 360.

[iii] Garay Hermosilla et al., case no. 10.843, 1996 Annual Report IACHR (1997), para. 57; Irma Reyes et al., case 11.228, par. 56, 109. In a Salvadoran case involving the army's murder of six Jesuit priests and two women, the IACHR determined that the 1993 amnesty law violates El Salvador's obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and called on the Salvadoran state to investigate and prosecute those responsible. The IACHR stressed that the Truth Commission, despite its "highly relevant" role "cannot be considered as a suitable substitute for proper judicial procedures as a method for arriving at the truth. The value of truth commissions is that they are created, not with the presumption that there will be no trials, but to constitute a step towards knowing the truth and, ultimately, making justice prevail. Nor can the institution of a Truth Commission be accepted as a substitute for the State's obligations, which cannot be delegated, to investigate violations committed within its jurisdiction, and to identify those responsible, punish them, and ensure adequate compensation for the victim..." Ellacuria Case, Report No. 136/99 (El Salvador), para. 229-230.

[iv] Honduran Supreme Court, Amparo en Revisión, Caso 58-96, Jan. 18, 1996 and Sentence of the Honduran Supreme Court, June 27, 2000, petition for declaration of unconstitutionality no. 20-99; partially reproduced at: http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/inst/MGP/JCI/04-noticias-ho-amnist_a.htm.

[v] See Margaret Popkin, "Guatemala's National Reconciliation Law: Combating Impunity or Continuing It? 24 Revista IIDH 173, Julio-diciembre 1996.

[vi] Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala: Memory of Silence (Guatemala: 1999), par. 47-48; see www.justiceforgenocide.org.

[vii] Cite Argentine cases

[viii] Barrios Altos case (Chumbipuma Aguirre and others vs. Peru). Sentence of March 14, 2001.

[ix] Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Capítulo 2, Recomendaciones, p.107, available at www.cverdad.org.pe.

[x] Countries that accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights in the context of a democratic transition include: Argentina (1984), Chile (1990), the Dominican Republic (1999), El Salvador (1995), Mexico (1998), Nicaragua (1991), Panama (1990), and Paraguay (1993).

[xi] Costa Rican Supreme Court Resolution 2000-9685, citing Sentencia 2313-95.

[xii] Ibid., Interpretation of ICC Statute articles 77 and 78 in light of article 80.

[xiii] See Extract of La Semana Jurídica Lexis Nexis Chile that discusses the decision of April 8, 2002, Proceso no. 346 of the Tribunal Constitucional, available at http://www.iccnow.org/espanol/articulos/TC1.pdf

[xiv] Declaración interpretive hecha al momento de Ratificación del Estatuto de Roma por el Estado Colombiano, Aug. 2, 2002, available at http://www.iccnow.org/espanol/colombia/colombia_doc.htm

[xv] Douglass Cassel, Northwestern University School of Law, Center for International Human Rights, World View Commentary No. 155, Feb. 5, 2003.

[xvi] Exposición de motivos al Proyecto de Ley estatutaria por el cual se dictan disposiciones en procura de la reincorporación de miembros de grupos armadas que contribuyan de manera efectiva a la consecución de la paz nacional.

[xvii] Human Rights Watch, "Colombia's Checkbook Impunity - a briefing paper," Sept. 22, 2003, p. 2.

[xviii] Oficina en Colombia del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Comunicado de Prensa: Observaciones al Proyecto de Ley Estatutaria que Trata sobre la Reincorporación de Miembros de Grupos Armados, Bogotá, Aug. 28, 2003.

[xix] See "E.U. se opone a que beneficios de ley de excarcelación cobijen a "narcos" pedidos en extradición," El Tiempo.com, Oct. 10, 2003, http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/poli/2003-10-10.

[xx] Diba Mazjub, "Peace or Justice? Amnesties and the International Criminal Court," 3 Melbourne Journal of International Law 247, 269-270 (2002).

[xxi] For a discussion of the issue of amnesties and ICC jurisdiction, see, e.g., Ronald C. Slye, The Legitimacy of Amnesties Under International Law and General Principles of Anglo-American Law: Is a Legitimate Amnesty Possible, 43 Va. J. Int'l L. 173 (Fall 2002); Gwen K. Young, Comment: Amnesty and Accountability, 35 UC Davis Law Review (Jan. 2002); Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Amnesty and the International Criminal Court, and Garth Meintjes, Domestic Amnesties and International Accountability,in Dinah Shelton, ed., International Crimes, Peace and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 77 and p. 83; Diba Majzub, Peace or Justice? Amnesties and the International Criminal Court, 3 Melbourne Journal of International Law 247 (2002); John Dugard, Dealing with Crimes of a Past Regime: Is Amnesty Still an Option? (1999) 12 Leiden Journal of International Law 1001.

Margaret Popkin is Executive Director of the Due Process of Law Foundation.

Back to Top