New York, Sao Paulo, April 29, 2015
Excellency Ambassador
Regina Maria Cordeiro Dunlop
Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN Office - Geneva
Excellency Ambassador
Luiz Alberto Figueiredo
Embassy of Brazil in the United States of America
Excellency Minister
Alexandre Peña Ghisleni
Department of Human Rights and Social Issues - MRE
Excellency Secretary
Pedro Saldanha
Division of Human Rights – MRE
Ref. Suggestions of recommendations to be addressed to the Government of the United States of
America during the 2nd Universal Periodic Review Cycle.
Excellencies,
The undersigned human rights organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Conectas
Direitos Humanos, are writing in regards to the 2nd cycle of the Universal Periodic Review at the UN
Human Rights Council and respectfully offer a few recommendations for human rights issues and questions
we hope the Brazilian government will consider raising during the United States of America (U.S.) UPR
review on May 11.
During the U.S. UPR review in 2010, 280 recommendations were made by several countries. Brazil made
seven recommendations, including recognizing the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, providing
alternatives for migrant detention, expanding social protection coverage, withdrawing reservations to the
Convention against Torture, taking measures to ensure reparation to victims of torture, and to allow
unimpeded access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to detention facilities under the
control of the U.S. At the time, the United States responded by accepting five of those recommendations,
and rejecting two of them (one on migrants access to health services, and the other on the CAT).
On May 11, 2015, the United States will undergo its second cycle of review, which is an opportunity not
only to follow-up on the recommendations that have been made by Brazil and accepted by the United States
in 2010, but to make new recommendations in light of new developments. Given Brazil’s active
participation in addressing several issues in the previous U.S.’ UPR review and the Brazilian government’s
commitment to strengthen the UPR and the universal protection of human rights more broadly, the
undersigned organizations highlight the following areas that are critical for the U.S. examination next month.
Accountability for Torture and Reparations to Victims
1. Ensure effective, independent, and impartial criminal investigations into all cases of
unlawful killing, torture or other ill-treatment, unlawful detention, or enforced
disappearances, conducted or authorized by the CIA and/or senior Bush Administration
officials, through the appointment of a special prosecutor. This process shall be
accompanied by the release of documents relating to the mistreatment of detainees
including the full Senate torture report, and the appointment of an independent body to
provide compensation and rehabilitation services to those who suffered torture or other
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Under the George W. Bush administration, many hundreds of people were tortured and abused by the CIA
and Department of Defense, primarily in Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and Iraq, but also in other countries
after unlawful rendition. Yet, to date, there has been little accountability for abuses including torture,
arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances1.
In January 2009, shortly after entering office, President Obama took important steps to dismantle the
torture program; closing secret prisons, banned the CIA from all but short-term transitory detention, and
put the CIA under the same interrogation rules that apply to the military. But in the following years, the
Obama administration undermined that early promise. There has been no accountability for torture and
other abuses:
o
o
o
o
No survivor of the U.S. torture program has had their day in court;
There has been no criminal accountability for the high-level architects of the previous
administration’s torture program;
The U.S. government has fought to keep secret many records that would allow the public to
understand the full extent of the previous administration’s torture and extraordinary rendition
program;
The U.S. has failed to respond to any of the petitions filed to the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights on behalf of victims of torture and abuse, including one filed by the ACLU seven
years ago.
The recent release of the summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the CIA’s
Detention and Interrogation Program (“Senate torture report”) provides an opportunity for the U.S. to
appoint a special prosecutor to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation of the conduct described
in the report, including all acts authorizing or ordering torture and other abuses. A comprehensive criminal
investigation by the U.S. government would dissuade future government officials from ordering or using
torture and abuse. Without an investigation or accountability, the U.S. is sending a dangerous message to
other countries that torture is justified in the name of national security2.
The U.S. UPR submission mentions the Durham investigation, which was concluded in 2012 without any
prosecutions against any high-level officials who authorized, or CIA agents who were involved in, the CIA
torture program. The U.S. submission fails to provide detailed information on the precise scope of Mr.
Durham’s mandate which seems to have focused on instances in which interrogators overstepped limits set
1
See ACLU’s report on “Accountability for Torture” at https://www.aclu.org/files/field_document/ACLU%20%20Accountability%20for%20Torture.pdf (last access: April, 2015)
2 On the international impact of the lack of accountability for U.S. CIA torture victims, see an joint-statement delivered by
more than 20 organizations (including Conectas and ACLU) at the March, 2015 HRC session at:
http://www.conectas.org/arquivos/editor/files/Statement%20Item%204%20(1).pdf (last access: April, 2015)
by senior officials, rather than on the culpability of senior officials themselves. The submission also fails to
confirm whether Mr. Durham or his investigators had interviewed any prisoner who was subjected to the
CIA torture program, a concern that was also raised during the review in November 2014 of the United
States before the United Nations Committee against Torture in Geneva.
Worthwhile mentioning that in 2010, during the 1st UPR Cycle, Brazil made one recommendation for the
U.S. government to ensure reparations for victims of torture. This was a recommendation partially accepted
by the U.S. government. Five years later, neither comprehensive criminal investigation, nor reparations have
taken place.
Closing Guantanamo and Access to Justice for Detainees
2. Take all necessary measures to transfer and resettle without delay all detainees cleared for
release in a manner consistent with international law obligations, ensuring a timely and
meaningful Periodic Review Board process for all detainees, end indefinite detention and
shut down unfair military commission system, by transferring pending cases to federal
courts and opposing any efforts to broaden unlawful indefinite detention beyond
Guantánamo Bay.
Thirteen years after opening, the prison at Guantánamo Bay still holds 122 foreign detainees, 57 of whom
have been cleared for release. Yet, the vast majority remain detained. Another 34 men have been designated
for indefinite detention without charge or trial, and 7 men face charges in the flawed military commission
system. Torture and ill-treatment, including forced-feeding, at Guantanamo have been well-documented,
yet not a single senior government official has been held accountable3.
Due to delays by the executive branch as well as Congressional restrictions, the transfer of the detainees
who have been cleared for release has been infrequent. Despite recent progress made by the release and
resettlement of 27 detainees (between September 2014 and January 2015), the pace of transfers and the
process established to clear additional detainees for release remain exceedingly slow.
The Obama administration has also opposed in court the release of detainees against whom the
government has no evidence of wrongdoing. For its part, Congress continues to keep in place provisions
banning or otherwise restricting the transfer of detainees.
There are also troubling reports that the Obama administration supports closing the Guantánamo prison
by moving detainees to a Department of Defense detention facility in the United States. Indefinite
detention in the United States is as unlawful and unacceptable as it is at Guantánamo.
Alternatives to Migrants’ Detention
3. Halt the detention of families and children due to their migration status. Use and expand
the use of community-based alternatives to detention with case management services in
place of institutional detention.
3
See ACLU’s report on “Access to Justice for Guantanamo Detainees” at
https://www.aclu.org/files/field_document/ACLU%20-%20Guantanamo.pdf (last access: April, 2015)
Since the summer of 2014, the U.S. government has dramatically expanded its detention of immigrant
families, including those with young children. The U.S. government opened three new family detention
facilities (one in New Mexico, and two in Texas) that can hold more than 3,500 people.
The majority of the families detained in these facilities are Central American women and children who have
fled extreme violence in their countries and are seeking political asylum. According to Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), approximately 70 percent of the women and children in family detention
demonstrate a credible fear of returning to their country of origin, which means they have a significant
possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum4.
Despite the fact that those people might be eligible for international protection, the U.S. government
imposed a blanket no-release policy for the express purpose of sending a deterrent message to other Central
Americans who might be considering migrating to the U.S. In its 2015 UPR report, the United States claims
that immigrants are detained “only after an individualized determination that detention is appropriate or
required by law.” But in expanding family detention, the U.S. government’s conduct directly contravenes the
2010 UPR recommendations made by Brazil and other countries demanding increased use of alternatives
to detention consistent with international human rights law.
Militarization of American policing
4. The United States Department of Defense should immediately stop providing military
weapons and equipment not suitable for law enforcement purposes to state and local law
enforcement agencies. The U.S should also independently and thoroughly investigate
human rights violations committed by law enforcement agents at the federal, state and
local levels, and hold accountable those responsible for abuses. Victims of police
misconduct should be compensated and provided access to justice. Police departments
should collect data on stops, frisks, searches, citations, arrests, excessive uses of force, and
justifiable homicides. Data should be collected and reported in a uniform manner and be
publicly accessible. Additionally, this data should be submitted to a national federal
database.
Militarized responses by law enforcement agencies in the U.S are becoming more troubling and more
frequent– as was manifested in Ferguson, Missouri, in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown,
in August 20145. Still, responses to riots and demonstrations are not the only situations where state and
local governments in the U.S. have been employing military means, similar to those used in wars been fought
abroad by the United States (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan). Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) which
were originally created in the late 1960s to deal with emergency situations—like riots, barricade and hostage
scenarios, and active shooter or sniper situations— are now overwhelmingly used to serve search warrants
in drug investigations, with the number of these teams having grown substantially over the past few decades.
4
See ACLU’s report on “Immigrant Family Detention in the United States” at
https://www.aclu.org/files/field_document/ACLU%20-%20Family%20Detention.pdf (last access: April, 2015)
5 See ACLU’s report on “The Excessive Militarization of American Policing” at
https://www.aclu.org/files/field_document/ACLU%20-%20%20Militarization%20of%20Policing.pdf (last access: April,
2015)
The militarization of American policing has occurred in part as a result of federal programs that use
equipment transfers and funding to encourage aggressive enforcement of the War on Drugs by state and
local police agencies. The militarization of U.S policing need also to be understood as a consequence of
the policies and measures adopted by the government of the United States after September 11th, 2001, in
the context of the so-called War on Terror.
The number of SWAT raids per year grew from 3,000 in the 1980s to 45,000 in the mid-2000s. Today, there
are an estimated 50,000 to 80,000 SWAT deployments per year, which amounts to at least 136 SWAT raids
per day. The use of a SWAT team to execute a search warrant essentially amounts to the use of paramilitary
tactics to conduct domestic criminal investigations in searches of people’s homes. Just as the War on Drugs
has disproportionately impacted people and communities of color, the use of paramilitary weapons and
tactics also primarily impacts people of color.
Police militarization increases the risk of the employment of methods that may constitute or result in civil
and human rights violations, including the storming of civilian households and the infliction of unjustified
injury or death. Furthermore, police militarization exacerbates already existing abuses within the law
enforcement system, such as selective policing, racial profiling, excessive and disproportionate use of force.
Recent well-documented incidents of deadly use of force and biased policing across the United States offer
an opportunity to change the culture of policing in the country. This culture, as it currently exists in some
cases, results in a relationship based on mistrust between law enforcement and communities of color. Such
a culture results in police killing unarmed black men with little accountability. And such a culture generates
rallying cries of “black lives matter.” But recent tragic events provide the United States a sea-change
opportunity to go beyond just dealing with a few bad apples and to reform and refresh an entire system.
The United States government must ensure that policing practices, especially use of force policies
nationwide, fall in line with the highest professional law enforcement standards and comply with
international human rights standards on law enforcement conduct, with particular emphasis on improving
accountability and increasing transparency with the general public and directly impacted communities.
We highly commend Brazil´s commitment to the UPR mechanism and appreciate your consideration of
the recommendations detailed in this letter which aim to improve the human rights situation in the United
States of America.
Considering Brazil’s strong commitments to the promotion and protection of human rights around the
world and its leading role in the establishment of the UPR process, we expect nothing less than robust and
active participation in the upcoming U.S. review, as well as follow-up on the implementation of the new
accepted recommendations.
We sincerely thank you for your attention, and we remain at your disposal for any further information.
Jamil Dakwar
Director, Human Rights Program
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Juana Kweitel
Conectas Human Rights
Program Director
Additional information
All the information presented above is based on ACLU’s thematic reports for the U.S. Periodic Review at the HRC
22nd session (May 2015). For more information on current key-human rights issues in the U.S, please see:
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-us-universal-periodic-review-22nd-session-un-human-rights-council-working-group-uprmay-2015?redirect=human-rights/aclu-submission-united-nations-universal-periodic-review
Organizations Background
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to
protecting human rights and civil liberties in the United States. The ACLU is the largest civil liberties organization in
the U.S., with offices in 50 states and over 500,000 members. The ACLU was founded in 1920 and acquired special
consultative status with ECOSOC in 1996. For more information, contact the Human Rights Program of the ACLU:
[email protected]
Conectas Direitos Humanos is a non-governmental and not-for-profit organization founded in São Paulo/Brazil,
whose mission is to promote the realization of human rights and consolidation of the Rule of Law in the Global
South - Africa, Asia and Latin America. Since 2006, Conectas has a consultative status with the ECOSOC-UN.
Conectas Foreign Policy Program monitors, since 2005, the Brazilian Foreign Policy through the lenses of promoting
human rights in Brazil and in third countries. For more information, contact Laura Waisbich at the Foreign Policy
Program of Conectas: [email protected]