[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS VICTIMS OF TORTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
__________
JUNE 29, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-381 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
------
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Grover Joseph Rees, Subcommittee Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Douglas C. Anderson, Counsel
Gary Stephen Cox, Staff Director
Catherine A. DuBois, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
Ms. Leslie Gerson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State.... 3
Ms. Lavinia Limon, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 6
Ms. Ann Van Dusen, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Policy and Program Coordination, U.S. Agency for International
Development.................................................... 8
Mr. Bo Cooper, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service......................................... 11
Dr. Judy Okawa, Director, Program for Survivors of Torture and
Servere Trauma, Center for Multi-Cultural Human Services....... 24
Mr. Ali Hoxhaj, Torture Survivor From Kosovo..................... 27
Ms. Ladi Olorunyomi, Torture Survivor from Nigeria............... 29
Mr. M., Torture Survivor from Iran............................... 34
Mr. Douglas A. Johnson, Executive Director, Center for Vitims of
Torture........................................................ 36
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Hon. Cynthia A. McKinney, A U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights...................... 50
Hon. Christopher H. Smith, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Chairman, Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights...................... 53
Dr. Judy Okawa, Director, Program for Survivors of Torture and
Server Trauma, Center for Multi-Cultural Human Services........ 55
Addition Material submitted:
Question submitted for the record by Chairman Smith to Deputy
Assistant Administrator Ann Van Dusen and response thereto..... 60
Question submitted for the record by Chairman Smith to Deputy
Assistant Secretary Leslie Gerson and responses thereto........ 63
Question submitted for the record by Representative Cynthia
McKinney to Deputy Assistant Secretary Leslie Gerson and
responses thereto.............................................. 66
Question submitted for the record by Chairman Smith to Deputy
Assistant Secretary Leslie Gerson and responses thereto........ 68
HEARING ON UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARDS VICTIMS OF TORTURE
----------
Tuesday, June 29, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:35 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Good afternoon. Today's hearing is on the United States
policy toward victims of torture around the world. This is the
latest in a series of hearings in which the Subcommittee on
International Operations and Human Rights has heard testimony
on torture and on the lasting damage it causes to its victims
and to their loved ones. Many of our witnesses have been
victims themselves. We have heard in the past from a native of
Uganda who suffered at the hands of the Idi Amin regime, a
Tibetan physician who was tortured by the Chinese Communists,
and an American who became a torture victim in Saudi Arabia
after he had a falling out with his employer, the Saudi Arabian
government. We have heard testimony from the torture victims,
dissidents in China and in Vietnam, members of ethnic minority
groups in Burma and Turkey, of slaves in Mauritania and Sudan,
and of people the world over whose only offense was their
belief in God. Today, we will focus on what the U.S. Government
is doing to help these people and what we ought to be doing.
In the last year, the United States law with respect to
torture victims has taken two giant steps forward. The first
step was the enactment on October 19, 1998 of a section 2242 of
the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, Division G of
Public Law 105-277, which finally implemented the non-return
provision of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and other
Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Although the United States had ratified the Convention in 1994,
Congress had never passed legislation implementing article
three of the Convention, which imposes an obligation not return
people to countries in which they face subjection to torture.
So, there was a conflict between our international obligations
and our domestic immigration law, which allowed, and in some
circumstances even required, the deportation of people to
places where it was more likely than not that they would be
tortured. Section 2242 declared such deportation to be contrary
to U.S. policy and required the Executive branch to promulgate
regulations implementing this policy. I am happy to say that
the Immigration and Naturalization Service recently issued the
rule required by section 2242, and we will hear testimony today
on the rule and its implementation.
The second step came a few days later on October 30 with
the enactment of Public Law 105-320, the Torture Victims Relief
Act. I am proud to have been the principal sponsor of this act.
It authorized $12.5 million over two years for assistance to
torture victims treatment centers here in the United States, of
which there are currently 14 and another $12.5 million to
treatment centers around the world, of which there are about
175. It also authorized a U.S. contribution in the amount of $3
million per year to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims
and required that Foreign Service officers be given specialized
training in the identification of torture and its long-term
effects, techniques for interviewing torture victims, and
related subjects.
The only provision of the Torture Victims Relief Act that
has been fully implemented so far is the authorization for an
increase of U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund. As
recently as Fiscal Year 1993, the U.S. contribution to the fund
was only $100,000. In Fiscal Year 1995, it went up to $1.5
million. For the 1996, the administration proposed to reduce by
two-thirds that amount, to $500,000. That was the year that I
first introduced the Torture Victims Relief Act along with 50
bipartisan co-sponsors. In response to our efforts, the
administration held the contribution to $1.5 million, and this
year, I am happy to say, the administration has fully funded
the $3 million authorization envisioned in the Torture Victims
Relief Act.
In other areas, the Executive Branch has not fulfilled the
mandate of the act. The $5 million authorized for contributions
of domestic treatments centers during Fiscal Year 1999 has
apparently not resulted in any increase in contributions to
such centers, although the Department of Health and Human
Services has included the $7.5 million authorization for Fiscal
Year 2000 in its budget request. The news on the foreign
treatment centers is even less encouraging. AID did not manage
to find any money in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget for
contributions to international torture victims treatment
centers and has not requested an appropriation in Fiscal Year
2000 for this purpose. I look forward to hearing from our
Administration witnesses about the reasons for the slow start
in implementation as well as the future prospects.
In the meantime, I am proud to announce that today I
introduced H.R. 2367 along with Tom Lantos, Mr. Gilman, and my
Ranking Member on this Subcommittee, Ms. McKinney, the Torture
Victims Relief Act Reauthorization Act. This bill will extend
and increase the authorization of last year's act to Fiscal
Year 2003. In each of the three fiscal years covered by the
proposal, $10 million is authorized for domestic treatment
centers, $10 million for international centers, and $5 million
for a U.S. contribution to the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture
Victims.
Finally, just let me say that I believe the basis for sound
political policy can be found in the Gospel of Matthew where
our Lord said that whatever you do to the least of our
brethren, you do to him. It seems to me that when people have
been tortured, have been suffered the most cruelest of
indignities, and have suffered so immensely, the least we can
do is provide for those individuals through the kind of
legislation that we have passed in the past and to provide the
help through the treatment centers. I want to thank in advance
all of our witnesses who are here today and, beginning with our
first panel, I would like to begin to introduce them at this
point.
Our first panel will consist of Ms. Leslie Gerson who is
serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Ms. Gerson's
responsibilities include multilateral affairs, country reports
and asylum, indigenous issues, Latin American affairs, and
bureau management issues. She has previously had positions at
the Department of State that included Management Analyst,
Senior Watch Officer, and an Instructor in Consular Law and
Practice.
Ms. Lavinia Limon has more than 22 years of professional
experience in refugee resettlement beginning in 1975 when the
first refugees from Southeast Asia were sent to Camp Pendelton.
Ms. Limon became Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement
at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in August
1993. As Director, Ms. Limon has managed the resettlement
process of 6,000 Kurdish asylees airlifted from the border of
northern Iraq to Guam. In addition to her work at HHS, Ms.
Limon has extensive background and knowledge of international
voluntary agency non-profit organizations from various work
capacities overseas.
Dr. Ann Van Dusen is serving as Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the Bureau for Program and Policy
Coordination at the U.S. agency for International Development.
Dr. Van Dusen has served the agency for the past 22 years. Some
of her prior positions were in the Bureau for Asia and Near
East, Bureau for Global Programs, as well as the Director of
the Office of Health. She has also done extensive work and
headed up the program for child survival, and we have had many
dealings in the past working on those important issues, and I
applaud her for that. Dr. Van Dusen earned her Doctorate in
sociology from Johns Hopkins University.
Mr. Bo Cooper is Acting General Counsel at the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since joining
INS in 1991, Mr. Cooper has served as the Deputy General
Counsel and as Director of the Asylum and Refugee Law Division
of the Office of the General Counsel. Mr. Cooper studied law at
Tulane University in New Orleans.
Again, I want to thank our very, very distinguished
witnesses for being here and ask them to please begin. Ms.
Gerson.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE GERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Ms. Gerson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor is headed by Assistant Secretary Harold Hongju
Koh. I will limit my oral remarks but ask that my full written
statement be included as a part of the record. Assistant
Secretary Koh asked me to convey his regrets that he cannot be
with us today and to thank you for holding this hearing. I am,
however, particularly grateful and gratified to be Assistant
Secretary Koh's representative today.
Like others in this room, my interest in this issue is
personal. My father and his siblings came to this country as
victims of pogroms in Belarus. My husband and his family in
Haiti have been victims for a number of years of a range of
human rights abuses, including death. You have my personal
commitment to strive to eradicate the odious practice of
torture. It is clear that its repercussions cut across
generations and mark us all.
This is my first appearance before this Committee. However,
I am familiar with your dedication to human rights and
democracy issues. I am also familiar with the domestic and
multilateral support for victims of torture provided by the
Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998, which was offered by you,
Mr. Chairman, and signed into law by the President last year.
For many of us, torture is virtually inconceivable. It is
simply not part of our frame of reference, but for all too many
it is a brutal reality that leaves scars for a lifetime. The
stories of the victims are indeed horrific, and the NGO's,
institutions, and individuals that serve victims, working to
heal their physical and psychological wounds are to be
commended for their important work. They make a positive impact
on shattered and traumatized lives and make it easier for
torture survivors to recover and become an integral part of the
larger community.
In the second panel this afternoon, you will be hearing
testimony from experts and witnesses who work with torture
survivors. Because these witnesses are well-equipped to discuss
the horrors of torture, the motivation of tortures, and the
long-term effects of torture, I will limit my remarks to U.S.
Government efforts to support the international fight against
torture and to aid those whose lives have been unjustly damaged
by that torture.
The United States is formally committed to ending torture
and helping individuals who have suffered from the debilitating
practice of torture. As President Clinton said last October
when he signed the Torture Victims Relief Act, and I quote,
``The United States will continue its efforts to shine a
spotlight on this horrible practice wherever it occurs, and we
will do all we can to bring it to an end.''
We can be proud that the United States has long played a
vigorous leading role in the formulation of the United Nations
Declaration on Protection from Torture and in the negotiations
on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which was ratified in 1994.
The United States is the largest single donor to the United
Nations Voluntary Fund on Torture, providing $3 million in
Fiscal Year 1999. I would also briefly mention that Assistant
Secretary Koh has discussed with Ambassador Swett, our
representative to Denmark, ideas for working with the Danish
government to honor and give moral support to torture victim
support organizations worldwide.
In addition, we speak out regularly against torture in our
public statements and public diplomacy. In our reporting in the
annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, we fully
cover internationally recognized individual, civil, and
political rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, including freedom from torture. The report on
each individual country includes a section covering findings of
torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment. We are very proud of the fact that in the Country
Reports we criticize those who torture, whether they are allies
or foe, and we believe that criticism itself contributes in
many cases to a reduction in abusive practices.
When we find evidence of torture, we use bilateral channels
to raise our concerns forcefully with responsible governments,
consistently raising these important concerns at the highest of
levels. We also work through a number of multilateral
organizations to press our specific concerns about torture
situations. For example, at the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights, we support country-specific resolutions that mention
cases of torture and also the thematic resolutions that support
the work of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.
Simply put, where there is evidence of torture, we demand
an accounting. Torturers must be shown that they cannot act
with impunity. For example, The United States took the lead in
pushing for the formation of International Criminal Tribunals
for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in part, to bring to
justice those responsible for torture and other crimes. Most
recently, we have worked very closely with the Yugoslavia
Tribunal to document a wide array of human rights abuses, war
crimes, and crimes against humanity, including torture in
Kosovo. We are also seeking to establish mechanisms of
accountability for the Khmer Rouge, and the current regime in
Iraq, as well as supporting the work of truth commissions the
world over.
But demanding justice is only half the battle. This
administration also tries to help torture survivors. The
administration does this in a variety of ways, ranging from
technical assistance, to facilities that focus on the treatment
of victims, to blocking the centurn of survivors to countries
where there is a substantial risk of torture. The United States
is the leading contributor to the U.N. Voluntary Fund on
Torture, which has provided international humanitarian
assistance and has funded psychosocial treatment and other
aspects of health care in response to the needs of refugees and
conflict victims in many regions who have suffered torture.
Mr. Chairman, I know you have heard from other
Administration Representatives that the U.S. report to the
Committee on Torture, as required by the Convention on Torture,
is near completion. I am pleased to inform you that we expect
the report to be completed by the end of the summer. In
addition, Assistant Secretary Koh is looking forward to an
opportunity to brief the Committee on this report after it has
been submitted to the U.N. Committee Against Torture.
In closing, we extend our concern and regard to individuals
who have experienced the cruelty of torture. We honor those at
the World Centers for Victims of Torture who labor at direct
care, education, and prevention. And, finally, we reaffirm our
commitment to this cause, as well as our desire and willingness
to work closely with Congress on these complex and troubling
issues.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Gerson, thank you very much for that
excellent statement. Let me just ask Mr. Faleomavaega if he has
any opening comments, but I do want to commend you for your
fine statement and for the good work of the Department on this
issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I do want to note for the
record the outstanding leadership that you certainly have
demonstrated over the years about this very important issue
that the Committee is now taking into consideration, and we
certainly we want to offer our personal compliments and welcome
of Members of the panel that will be testifying this afternoon.
Because we don't have the advantage of calling the hearings
and consultations with the Minority Members, I have the
unfortunate experience of having to be given a fancy title of
being the Ranking Democrat on Fisheries, and we are having a
Subcommittee hearing right now at two o'clock, and in as much
as I really would love to listen to the testimonies, I would
like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I absolutely support the work
of our Subcommittee in this effort and certainly compliment
your leadership in seeing that this is carried through, and
certainly with the support of the Administration, we should
have this taken fully by the Congress. And, again, my apologies
to the Members of the panel. I would have loved to have
listened to the testimony, Mr. Bo Cooper especially who I call
an American Samoan too, because he was on my island some years
back and hope it was a positive experience for him being there
among the natives, but certainly welcome Mr. Cooper here in our
presence.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I have to go because of this
hearing that I have to be part of in the Subcommittee on
Fisheries.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for your good work on this. This is a
bipartisan effort, and you have been there on every issue,
including co-sponsorship for the Torture Victims Relief Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Absolutely. Let us go to West Papua New
Guinea next time. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Limon.
STATEMENT OF LAVINIA LIMON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REFUGEE
RESETTLEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Ms. Limon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify at today's hearings on U.S. policy
toward victims of torture. As Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, ORR, I am pleased to talk about the activities we
have funded and to speak to the President's Fiscal Year 2000
budget request of $7.5 million for domestic services and
rehabilitation for victims of torture.
Shockingly, victims of torture come from around the world,
but ORR is most aware of those who come from Kosovo, Bosnia,
African nations and the Middle East and arrive as refugees to
the United States. Today, you will hear from individuals who
have been tortured, and they will speak more directly an
eloquently than I can about their experiences. However, through
ORR programs we have learned about and have become sensitized
to the experience of torture victims.
For three years, ORR has been awarding funds to assist
torture victims who have refugee status. Beginning in 1996, we
have gradually increased our support, and this year, we have,
so far, awarded $1.5 million to 10 different organizations. The
programs these funds support identify torture victims among
refugee communities and assist the survivors in obtaining help.
The kinds of activities funded by ORR include training of
refugee resettlement staff, English language teachers,
volunteers, and all community services staff so that torture
survivors can be identified and referred to the services they
need. Second, they orient refugees themselves to the help
available from existing mental health services and specially
funded torture victim centers, and they orient mental health
professionals to effectively serve refugees and torture
survivors across language and cultural divides.
The services needed by torture victims are a unique
combination of medical care, psychological help, social
services, and spiritual healing, and I would like to describe
just some of the programs that we support. The Center for
Victims of Torture in Minnesota established a training program
for school teachers in their classrooms who are either
themselves victims of torture or whose family members have been
tortured. Survivors International in San Francisco has
established peer support groups and a community center which
offers the survivors a path out of their isolation. The
International Institute of Boston is training mental health
organizations throughout New England to treat torture
survivors, and in New York City, the organization, Solace,
helps survivors of torture reunite with their families and
obtain services, such as employment and housing.
At ORR, we have come to know the network of non-profit
organizations around the country whose mission it is to serve
torture victims. They are dedicated and hard working, and they
provide services to victims of torture without regard to their
nationality, politics, socio-economic class, or immigration
status even though the Office of Refugee Resettlement funds can
only be used to assist refugees. They solicit funds from
private sources, and a few have been funded by the United
Nations Fund for Victims of Torture. Several years ago, the
Minnesota legislature provided seed money that launched the
Center for Victims of Torture, but the prevalence of torture
has only recently become widely recognized, and support for
services has not kept pace with the need. Many of these
agencies have far more clients than the current funding can
serve.
The President's request under this new authority would
enable us to provide a higher level of support to domestic
centers and programs for victims of torture. We would be able
to provide direct clinical services, including social and legal
services, and we would be able to extend the understanding of
how torture has affected those who survive and which services
and treatments are most effective.
Last week, I met with a young woman who had been tortured
and who spoke with me about her experiences. She said, ``The
torture experience traumatized and intimidated me. As a result,
after I left my country, I hid from everyone. Please remember
we need time and space to put distance between the torture and
our next steps, but we don't need this help forever. Most
importantly, we need each other. We need to be together. Being
together brings support in a safe place to begin to discuss and
understand what we have experienced by being tortured and what
this means in the world. Then we can once again take charge of
our lives. Then we can begin again; we can raise our voices; we
can be proud of what we endured for our human rights.''
After working 24 years in refugee work, I have come to
understand that for refugees, building a new life is not just
about establishing a home, learning a language, accessing
health care, and getting a job. The most important
accomplishment for refugees and torture survivors is the
healing of the spirit. For survivors, their tasks are the same,
but the pain is greater and the challenge is deeper. The people
these funds are intended to serve are survivors. They will help
themselves, but they need a helping hand and a caring heart.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee today, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Limon follows:]
Mr. Smith. Ms. Limon, thank you very much for your
testimony and for your fine work.
I would like to ask--Dr. Van Dusen.
STATEMENT OF ANN VAN DUSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUREAU OF POLICY AND PROGRAM COORDINATION, UNITED STATES AGENCY
FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Van Dusen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to outline the U.S. agency for International
Development's efforts to prevent and control the worldwide
problem of torture.
This weekend, as you know, many people gathered in
Washington to commemorate the second annual U.N. International
Day in support of torture victims and survivors. We at USAID
strongly support their cause. Many of our programs, especially
those in the democracy and human rights area, are directed at
preventing torture from occurring in the first place. Others
are directed at the treatment of victims.
Our definition of torture is an inclusive one. It includes
a man who is beaten or maimed, a woman who is raped for reasons
that are in part political and psychological rape as an
instrument of war, and the individual--unfortunately, often a
child--who is forcibly recruited to a rebel army by threats or
beatings. All of these human beings will need help and
understanding in dealing with the trauma that lasts long after
the initial act of violence.
For years, USAID has provided assistance to non-
governmental organizations and others for programs directed at
torture. I have submitted my full statement for the record. I
just want to highlight, in the next few minutes, some of the
specific activities that AID is supporting around the world.
Many of these were outlined in a recent report to Congress. I
want to speak to you briefly about Kosovo, because it is on all
of our minds and then to conclude with a word about prevention
and what we can do to prevent this horrible practice from
occurring.
It is hard to speak about good news in this area, but if
there is any, we might look to Latin America where the spread
of democracy in recent years has dramatically reduced the
incidents of torture and human rights abuse in the region. AID
has encouraged that trend in a number of ways. Our funding of
justice and rule of law programs in Latin America began more
than 15 years ago. These programs have worked in a variety of
ways to overcome the long history of police and governmental
abuse that exists in many countries.
USAID has also supported the work of the Inter-American
Institute for Human Rights. The current program that we are
supporting with that organization supports the work of about 14
ombudsman offices. The purposes of these offices is to create a
visible mechanism to deal with government-sponsored abuses of
human rights, and torture is an important part of that work.
The Institute has also created a program for integrated
prevention of torture. Initially, the focus of that program was
on training health professionals in the rehabilitation of
torture victims. The current objective, interestingly, is to
train prison officials, improve prison conditions, and
otherwise give priority to prevention of torture.
In Africa, USAID has a variety of programs directed at
torture and related forms of trauma. For example, in 1998, the
agency's human rights program in South Africa totaled $1.5
million and placed strong emphasis on victims of violence and
torture. In Liberia, the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund
supported a number of programs to assist children and youth who
have been severely affected by years of conflict in that
country. This program has also worked in a number of African
countries, including Angola, Rwanda, Mozambique, and Sierra
Leone. The War Victims Fund supports clinics that in addition
to dealing with landmine victims, also treats people who have
been tortured, and we may talk later about a program that may
get underway in Sierra Leone where we have found that the needs
of torture victims is quite acute.
In Cambodia, to address the harsh aftermath of the Khmer
Rouge reign of terror, we have supported the Harvard School of
Public Health Program of Refugee Trauma. That program trains
primary health care physicians to recognize and treat mental
illness and trauma. In that program, we are looking at
refugees, children, landmine victims, and widowed women.
In Bosnia, USAID has supported programs that provide trauma
counseling and medical assistance for war victims, including
those who have been tortured by rapes and other means. Other
funding to local NGO's has been provided to offer counseling to
victims of torture, rape, and other atrocities. Fortunately,
the incidents of these crimes has greatly diminished since the
signing of the Dayton Accords.
Finally, let me turn to Kosovo. As USAID and many other
organizations and nations begin the massive program of
humanitarian relief and recovery there, we are extremely aware
of the many Kosovars who have suffered from rape, torture, and
other forms of brutality. We have supported the treatment of
these victims in the refugee camps, and we will continue to
assist them as they return to their homeland. Already, in the
refugee camps, USAID has support psychosocial assistance in the
form of training for health providers, teachers, parents, as
well as the strengthening of local service providers.
In Macedonia, we have supported programs by the
International Catholic Migration Committee and Medicine du
Monde that included therapeutic activities for girls and women
suffering from rape and other forms of trauma. In Albania,
Catholic Relief Services social workers have provided trauma
counseling to girls and women, and in the next week, we will be
seeking new proposals for services in Kosovo that will include
psychosocial treatment for victims of torture and rape.
Supplemental funds made available in Fiscal Year 1999 under the
Kosovo Economic and Social Recovery Program will be in part
used for this purpose.
In short, Mr. Chairman, we share your concern about torture
wherever it exists. In Kosovo and throughout the world, we
intend to use every means at our disposal to prevent those
abuses from happening and to care for its victims. Our focus is
twofold: first, to develop the institutions, whether it is free
press, independent judiciary, human rights watchdog groups,
that can help prevent torture and can hold perpetrators
accountable, and, second, in treatment, to focus on the
community and to strengthen local institutions to deal with the
effects of torture and trauma. Our goal is to strengthen these
organizations so that they can continue to serve their
communities after U.S. funds have been expended.
Our recent report to Congress outlines the support the
USAID has provided to victims of torture. I would just comment
that report, which was prepared three months ago, doesn't
mention Kosovo. As a result of the atrocities that have
occurred in the last three months, we will probably be doubling
what we are doing to address the victims of torture, and the
need for flexibility when these events occur is just critical.
So, that report, which estimated about $5 million of activity
this year, is probably wrong by half, given what we know will
be our programs starting up in Kosovo and the neighboring
states.
I can assure you that even with the increased constraints
on discretionary funding in the 150 account, we will not stop
with what we have already achieved. We have already sent you a
notification of our intent to obligate funds in Kosovo dealing
with the dire situation there, including support for the
Kosovar victims of torture, and we will continue our efforts in
other parts of the world where this remains a critical social
issue.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Van Dusen appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Dr. Van Dusen, thank you very much for your
testimony, and I will like to yield to Cynthia McKinney,
Ranking Member of the Committee, if she has any opening
comments.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening
statement, which I would like to submit for the record, and I
look forward to hearing from our panelists.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McKinney appears in the
appendix.]
Ms. McKinney. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Cooper.
STATEMENT OF BO COOPER, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Mr. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, Representative McKinney, I am
very grateful for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee
today on important developments in U.S. immigration policy
toward victims of torture.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture is, from our
perspective at the INS, the most important human rights
instrument to which the U.S. has recently become a party. In
our view, the cardinal obligation under that Convention is
contained in article three, and under article three, the U.S.
has agreed not to expel, return, or extradite a person to
another state where he or she would be tortured.
Last year, the President signed into law the Foreign
Affairs Reform Act and Restructuring Act of 1998. Section 2242
of that act you referred to correctly, Mr. Chairman, we think,
as a giant step in human rights law in the United States,
required regulations to implement the U.S. obligations under
article three of the Convention. Within the deadline set by
Congress, on February 19 of this year, the Department of
Justice published an interim rule to establish procedures for
an alien to raise a claim to protection from removal to a
country where he or she fears torture.
This afternoon, I would like to outline briefly for you our
new regulations to implement article three. To our knowledge,
no other country in the world has put into place a domestic
determination system under article three that is anywhere near
as comprehensive or transparent as ours. We believe that the
various safeguards built into the system will ensure that it
renders fair and accurate decisions.
In developing these regulations, we were called upon to
balance a number of important but often competing interests.
Our primary goal was to create procedures that ensure that no
alien is removed from the United States under circumstances
that would violate article three. At the same time, we sought
to ensure that the new procedures do not unduly disrupt the
issuance and execution of removal orders. To this end, we have
designed a system that will allow aliens subject to the various
types of removal proceedings to seek protection under article
three. At the same time, we have created mechanisms to quickly
identify and resolve frivolous claims to protections so that
the new procedures cannot be used as a delaying tactic by
aliens who are not in fact at risk.
Generally, the regulations provide that an immigration
judge will consider a claim to protection under the Convention
Against Torture, along with any other applications, during
removal proceedings. Either party would have the ability to
appeal decisions of the immigration judge to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. This decision, to place article three
claims within context of removal proceedings, is one of the key
features of the new rule and was made in spite of concerns that
the availability of this new form of protection could become a
last resort for aliens, especially those with criminal
backgrounds who are ineligible for any other form of
protection, whether or not the person is actually at risk of
harm. But we made this decision for a number of reasons. First,
we wanted to create a transparent system with clear legal
standards articulated and applied. Second, we believe that
placing these claims in the removal proceeding, where they are
heard with all the process attending that forum, is an
important safeguard to ensure fair and accurate decisions.
Third, we think that it is in fact in the interest of
efficiency for these claims to be raised and developed before
the immigration judge at the same time that asylum or other
claims that may involve the same facts are raised. Finally, the
availability of appeal to the BIA will allow the alien to seek
review of this important decision and will also allow the INS
to use the review mechanism to ensure that decisions about the
applicability of article three are made consistently and
according to the standards of proof required by article three
itself. Further, it will allow for the development of a body of
jurisprudence on the standards and definitions of article three
in the same way that a body of case law on the Refugee
Convention has developed.
Current immigration law provides for several categories of
cases to be handled in streamlined processes outside of the
immigration judge hearing context. For example, aliens who
arrive at ports of entry with fraudulent or with no documents,
aliens who are convicted of aggravated felonies, and aliens who
illegally re-enter the country after having left under a
removal order, all are subject to expedited administrative
removal processes. For these cases, the rule employs screening
mechanisms to identify quickly potentially meritorious claims
to protection and to resolve frivolous ones with dispatch.
One of the most important questions in developing these
regulations was how to deal with aliens who would be tortured
in the country of removal but who are barred from other forms
of protection because of criminal or other background. The
legislation implementing article three provides that ``to the
maximum extent consistent with the obligations of the United
States under the Convention'' the regulations must exclude from
their protection aliens who are barred from withholding. There
are no exceptions to article three's prohibition on the term,
and the statute clearly demands that the regulations be
consistent with article three. The starting point for the
Department of Justice, therefore, was that the regulations must
prohibit the return of any alien to a country where he is
likely to be tortured, even if the alien would be barred from
withholding under the Refugee Convention. To comply with both
aspects of the legislative directive to limit protection for
aliens who are withholding-barred, therefore, the rule creates
two separate provisions for protection under article three of
the Convention Against Torture for aliens who would be tortured
in the country of removal.
The first provision establishes a new form of withholding
of removal which is only available to aliens who are not barred
from withholding. The second provision creates deferral of
removal, which will be available to aliens who would be
tortured in the country of removal but who are barred from
withholding. Deferral of removal is a less permanent and less
extensive form of protection which will be accorded to an alien
only for so long as he is likely to be tortured in the country
of removal. To accomplish this, the regulation provides for a
new streamlined mechanism to terminate deferral of removal if
the alien no longer faces likely torture in the country in
question.
As part of our commitment to implementing our new
regulations, the INS has turned its attention to survivors of
torture who come into contact with the immigration system. We
have undertaken a number of training initiatives which we
intend to expand to help immigration officials identify and
respond with sensitivity to the needs of survivors and the
effects that results of such severe trauma may have had on
them. For example, the Asylum Division of the INS has
maintained a close working relationship with experts in the
field, including, for example, the Center for Survivors of
Torture in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the Bellevue/NYU Program
for Survivors of Torture in New York City. Professionals from
these and other organizations have participated in the basic
month-long training session attended by all asylum officers.
Incorporated into this course is training on interviewing
survivors of torture and other severe trauma. Professionals who
work with survivors helped to develop our lesson plan on this
topic, and over the past several years, this training has
increased in length from two hours to an entire day. The
training includes lectures and discussions with experts in the
field on the physical and psychological effects of torture,
implications for the interview, and stress or burnout that the
interviewing officer may experience.
Mr. Chairman, that is a summary of our efforts to carry out
our obligations under 2242. A lot of the complex issues that
are raised by the convention and the statutory instruction lie
ahead of us rather than behind us, but it is an effort that we
have been proud of, and I would be delighted to provide more
details about the new regulations or to answer any other
questions you may have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, and thank you all for
your testimonies. I will just ask a few opening questions, and
then I will yield to my good friend from Georgia, Ms. McKinney.
In talking about overseas treatment centers, we know that
there are, counting U.S. centers, approximately 200 treatment
centers in existence, the overwhelming majority of which are
overseas; some of which are actually in countries where torture
is ongoing and pervasive. What is the relationship between our
embassies, our embassy personnel, and those treatment centers?
Are they ever included in grants or exchanges that USAID,
perhaps, might undertake? I was discouraged to see that in
Fiscal Year 1999 money was not provided to those overseas
centers as envisioned by the legislation, nor is there a
request in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget, unless I missed
something somewhere, and perhaps you can tell me that. But it
seems to me that we could have found some money in the AID
budget to give to these in many cases struggling centers that,
by all accounts, are always underfunded. If it had not been for
the almost overdedication of their staffs and the use of
volunteers, they would never be able to do their jobs--and that
is domestic and abroad. So, what is the relationship? Why is
there not an appropriation or a line item request in the budget
for Fiscal Year 2000? And why wasn't any money found last year
for those overseas centers?
Dr. Van Dusen. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could start with the
question, and my colleague from the State Department may want
to talk about the role of the embassies.
There is in fact a grant to the Peru Coordinator for Human
Rights, which is one of these centers, and this is a new grant
this year to basically work on--to put together studies on
human rights abuses that are related to torture. And we have
met with the staff of the Minnesota center and certainly are
encouraging them to make application for the Kosovo program,
which has a very aggressive element looking at the treatment of
torture victims.
I think the--there isn't a line item. It is partly the way
our budget is structured. We certainly are committed to
continue to do the programs that we have started. We are not
going to cut back on that. In fact, before the Kosovo
atrocities occurred, we were looking at a program for next
fiscal year in the $6 million range. I am sure that is an
underestimate. But because our focus is on the community and
making sure the services are integrated into the community and
that we are building capacity, the decision is at the local
level very often. Rather than having a central line item, we
rely on the people who are designing the program to call upon
appropriate centers. I know in many of the countries where we
are working on torture issues, there doesn't appear to be a
center. That shouldn't preclude their getting involved, but I
do think that may be part of the reason, but there is nothing
preventing our programs from working with these centers, but I
think through sharing information about the work of these
centers, there is a good likelihood that they will become more
involved.
Mr. Smith. Does AID maintain a list of centers and what is
the relationship is with our own embassy personnel? How do they
interface? Again, I was so encouraged when the President in his
signing statement noted the expanded funds for treatment
centers. I served for 19 years in the House, and I will never
forget in my first term when we tried--and I worked with Tom
Daschle, as I was the Republican and he was the Democrat
sponsor--to attack the issue of post-traumatic stress in our
Vietnam veterans, and one of the key ways was having centers
that were proximate to the people who would be served, and it
seems to me that closeness is very important to those who can't
get out of the country. Many of these centers are harassed by
the countries in question, and they are loathed by the
offending governments. It seems to me that this should be a
priority. And if we had--and perhaps you can provide it to us
for the part of the record--a list of those centers and the
kind of relationship we have with them so that relationship
could be further forged and more money could be provided. I
happen to think the $10 million we envisioned in the current
bill is still an underfunding. I mean, these people are in dire
need, as we all know--and I am preaching to the choir here--but
we need to be making sure that the money does match our concern
so that they get the treatment they so rightfully need.
Dr. Van Dusen. I would be happy to provide that for the
record. Our support often goes to private, voluntary
organizations. It is harder to track the way they reach out
then to centers in the area, but we will try to get that
information for you.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Do you or anyone else have any knowledge of any
instance where a treatment center has at least appealed to our
embassy personnel for assistance when they were being harassed
or in any way maligned by a government? Yes?
Ms. Gerson. I am not familiar with any appeals as a result
of harassment. I do have a couple of examples where our
embassies have been working with centers that I believe--if my
information is correct--are part of the IRCT group of 175 to
200 centers. For example, we have a longstanding relationship
in Turkey--our embassy and consulates there--with the Human
Rights Foundation of Turkey, which runs treatment centers for
victims of torture, and we try to work together on our mutual
goals there. The advances are slow, but there are some.
Also, in Nepal, our embassy there worked with AID,
actually, and the Department of Defense to secure the donation
of a planeload of surplus medical supplies--this was a couple
of years ago, not part of the 1998 report--surplus medical
supplies and other equipment to the center for victims of
torture there, and I understand that material included two
vehicles and some other necessary equipment.
I would just like to advise, also, that on the issue of
USIS exchanges, in the past two years, USIS has funded 350
exchange visitors in the human rights field. I don't have a
breakdown of how many of those were themselves, perhaps,
victims of torture or worked on torture issues, but certainly,
some of them, including two presidents of women's associations
in Africa who visited with Mrs. Clinton earlier this year would
be among those.
And, finally, I mentioned in my opening remarks just a
little about working, through our embassy in Copenhagen, with
the Danish government. In fact, at the end of July, Ambassador
Swett will be here with a representative of the Danish
government for a program sponsored, I believe, by the Human
Rights Caucus where we hope to jointly endorse a program of
``hands-out'' and extensive interaction between the embassies
of our two countries--Denmark and the U.S.--with some of these
treatment centers worldwide as a way of informally or formally
showing support--inviting them to more embassy functions,
visiting the centers, being sure that we approach, as
appropriate, members of the government to speak on their behalf
without, of course, threatening their work. So, I think there
are several areas where we can make progress.
Mr. Smith. I do appreciate that, and certainly Mr. Lantos
will be happy to hear that his son-in-law is coming back home
for a visit.
In terms of members, am I correct that there are about
400,000 survivors living in the United States? And what is the
estimation as to survivors worldwide, Ms. Limon?
Ms. Limon. We do operate on the 400,000 figure. We have,
unfortunately, not really been able to substantiate it, but in
working with the groups who do treat victims of torture, that
does seem to be an operable number. Overseas, I would have to
defer to one of my colleagues.
Ms. Gerson. I am sorry, I don't have sort of an estimate,
but I would be happy to work with others and research that----
Mr. Smith. If you could provide that for the record. We
want to be as accurate as we can be. We just want to make sure
that we have a good handle on the problem.
Mr. Smith. Ms. McKinney?
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the U.S.
Government has been identified very closely, unfortunately,
with governments that participate in torture, and at one time,
we even exported the implements of torture, such as cattle
prods to the Africaners in South Africa. I am wondering, do we
export such implements of torture still today to governments
that torture, and do you monitor that?
Ms. Gerson. I can, perhaps, try to address that. Obviously,
there has been legislation such as the Leahy amendment and
related DOD legislation, which has assisted us in ensuring that
instruments that could be used for human rights abuse do not
reach the hands of military, police, or other security agents
in countries that have a credible record of human rights abuse.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, with the help
of our embassies overseas and with the help of non-governmental
organizations, vets sales of U.S. financed military and other
equipment to countries worldwide, and----
Ms. McKinney. I am sorry, I was distracted. Would you
please repeat that?
Ms. Gerson. I was just pointing out that thanks to recent
legislation, the Leahy amendment in particular and DOD related
legislation, we are better able to vet sales of U.S. Government
financed military and police equipment to countries, and we are
required to identify countries where there is credible evidence
of human rights abuse by units who might benefit from military
equipment or training and to, therefore, recommend against the
sale of that equipment or the provision of training to those
units. Now, this works----
Ms. McKinney. Has there been an instance of the denial of
such sales?
Ms. Gerson. Yes. Sales have not been provided to some units
in Colombia, to some units in Ecuador, to some units in Turkey.
I believe that there are perhaps others, but those are three
with which I have been most recently involved.
Ms. McKinney. You could provide me the list and the reasons
why those sales were denied?
Ms. Gerson. Yes.
Ms. McKinney. I think we have sales pending right now to
Colombia--transfers pending to Colombia and Turkey.
Ms. Gerson. Right. I would just like to point out that it
is not blanket sales to the government, per se, but rather that
equipment is destined for a unit or units where we have
credible evidence that they have been involved in human rights
abuse, and the government has taken no credible steps to deal
with the abuses. So, it is not a question of just all sales but
rather for those units.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you.
My second question relates to the training that is
provided--military and police training. Of course, the School
of the Americas has become famous or infamous for its
curriculum, which actually taught torture and murder. What
steps have been taken to remove such curricula from those who
participate in our police and military training?
Ms. Gerson. I am not an expert on the School of the
Americas, but I believe that their training has been revised.
The School of the Americas continues to make a significant
contribution to the professionalization of Latin America's
militaries in that the Latin American and Caribbean areas
remain among the most peaceful demilitarized regions of the
world. We obviously deplore any human rights abuses--wherever
they may occur--including those where persons have received
training from any government who is attempting to assist them
in democratization and human rights work. Human rights officers
at every embassy, using information provided by the host
government offices and NGO's, screen all applicants who might
be going to the School of the Americas or where we may be
training on the ground, in the country to ensure that they have
no negative human rights record or record of abuse before they
are trained.
Ms. McKinney. So, are you suggesting that the participants
in such trainings--police and military trainings--do not have
any background of torture or human rights abuse?
Ms. Gerson. I am not suggesting that in the past that may
not have been the case, but now we do use records from our
embassies and from NGO's to try to determine if there is a
record of abuse of a potential trainee. In that case, the unit
is the individual, and if we have any credible evidence that
they have been involved in an abuse, they will be denied
training.
Ms. McKinney. So, what about the instance of Colombia?
Ms. Gerson. If, for example, a group of 10 individuals who
were to either come to the School of the Americas or we were to
wish to train with them on the ground in Colombia or at another
location, the names of those individuals would be forwarded for
vetting from the several sources which might have information
about their backgrounds, and if an individual is found to have
a credible record of abuse, the training will not be offered to
that individual.
Ms. McKinney. Have there been instances where individuals
have been denied acceptance into our training because of their
backgrounds?
Ms. Gerson. I can find out any specific details for you,
but what I do know is that some trainings have actually been
delayed, because we were not able to accumulate the information
in enough time to be sure that we were training people with
backgrounds that were clear at that time.
Ms. McKinney. My next question relates to torture and the
use of excessive force here in this country, and I am wondering
if, in the course of what you do to talk about this issue
abroad, if there is any acknowledgement whatsoever of the fact
that we have our own victims of torture and excessive force
right here in this country, as amply demonstrated by the most
recent report of Amnesty International? That is for anybody;
that is not just for Ms. Gerson.
Ms. Gerson. I would be happy to start out, though, because
at the recent U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, one of
the major issues the U.S. Government had to address was the
very recent appearance of the Amnesty Rights for all U.S.
citizens report. We obviously admit that we also have human
rights defects here in the United States and we intend to work
on them. There was a fairly comprehensive report prepared to
try to address those issues in time for the Human Rights
Commission, and, as you probably are aware, on December 10, the
President established an Interagency Working Group where
Justice and INS and the Department of State and all of those
who are supposed to be working on our own compliance with the
various human rights conventions would work on our own issues.
We have met every month since then, and a great deal of our
effort has gone into looking at our own compliance, and,
certainly, when we address folks worldwide about their
problems, we often try to say ``We are struggling also with a
similar problem. Let us talk about how we can both work on it
in our own situations.''
Ms. McKinney. I would like to see that report.
Ms. McKinney. What it does is gives an assessment of where
the United States is in the compliance with all of the
conventions?
Ms. Gerson. No, this particular report tried to aim--it was
an informal means for us going to the Human Rights Commission--
tried to aim at the various chapters, the eight or nine
chapters, of the Amnesty report so that we would have some idea
of where we stood as a government on each of those issues and
what areas we were working in so that we could exchange
information with representatives of other governments.
Ms. McKinney. I would certainly like to see a copy of that
report.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have one more question.
OK, finally, I understand that Israel is trying to change
the definition of ``torture'' so that its practices, as it
relates to Palestinians are not considered to be torture. Could
you tell what the definition of ``torture'' is that you work
with?
Ms. Gerson. Obviously, there are many different
interpretations of what might constitute torture, but sort of
as a start, we often refer to exactly what it says in the
Convention, which is--sorry, my page if flipped over--for the
purposes of the Convention, the term ``torture'' means ``any
act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or
a confession or punishing him for an act he or a third person
has committed or is suspected of committing or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.'' There is a little bit more after that, but
it is fairly comprehensive, and it certainly would include many
instances of abuse.
Ms. McKinney. What about the denial of available medicine?
Would that be considered torture?
Ms. Gerson. I think what happens in a case of, for example,
denial of medicine, some rapes, female genital mutilation, many
things that are not clearly done in a detainee or prisoner
situation, the standards are clear in the legislation, but we
would have to take each instance on a case-by-case basis and
apply that to the definition. Sometimes our common sense notion
of what would constitute torture is not necessarily legally
defensible with the definition. I think, as you know, there are
other opinions of what constitutes torture. I think the
important thing here is to whether or not one of these items
would be encompassed by this definition of torture legally.
They are human rights abuses, and for us, regardless of whether
it reaches someone's standard of torture, it has to be dealt
with as it is a very serious abuse of human rights, and we
would consider that an issue of the utmost importance
regardless of how someone would define it. In other words, we
believe it would have to be prevented, punished, and that the
victim of it would need to be assisted.
Ms. McKinney. Did I understand you to say that the denial
of available medicine could be considered a human rights abuse?
Ms. Gerson. This would depend on each situation, and I
think we would have to look at this on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Cooper. Excuse me, I just wanted to add a point from
the Immigration perspective. We have set up the regulations
here where obviously one of the questions that an adjudicator
is going to precisely have to decide is what kinds of acts
constitute torture to which a person ought not be returned. We
have set the regulations up in a way that simply derives from
the very definition that my colleague has read to you from the
Convention, along with anything that the U.S. said about that
definition at the time it became a party in the form of
reservations or declarations or understandings. One of the key
reasons why we decided that these claims ought to be heard in
the context of an immigration judge proceeding with the
possibility of an appeal to at least the appellate
administrative tribunal is precisely because it seemed to us
that an effort to answer questions like that in advance when
setting up the rules to implement the Convention might not
offer the sort of flexibility that is necessary in order to
carry out your obligations appropriately, and that questions
just like the ones that you posed are best answered in the
context of an adjudication where the person who is making the
allegation can come with fully developed arguments and
evidence, and there can be a body of law that develops on
questions just like that.
Ms. McKinney. It is estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000
children per month die in Iraq as a result of U.S. sanctions,
over a million people dead, and my common sense notion would
suggest that perhaps not only is that a human rights abuse, but
it is torture. The United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights
has come very close to saying the same thing. What is the
recourse when U.S. policy becomes an instrument of human rights
abuse and torture? What do you do? Do you go along with it?
Ms. Gerson. I am sorry, I don't have an answer to that
question. I will have to get back with you on that.
Ms. McKinney. I appreciate your response.
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Ms. McKinney, thank you very much.
Let me ask, Mr. Cooper, you had indicated that the training
had gone from two hours to a day----
Mr. Cooper. That is right.
Mr. Smith [continuing].--And certainly ought to be
applauded for that. I would like--and perhaps you could provide
this for the record--perhaps an Executive summary of exactly
what that training looks like so we can have a feel of what is
being conveyed to those individuals. But I understand that some
Immigration judges, for example, dismiss testimony of health
professionals who have provided treatment to torture victim
applicants extended over periods of time. My question to
whoever would like to take it and to you, in terms of the
training issue, is do the Immigration judges get trained? I
mean, we can't assume that they get it by osmosis. Are they
given at least something equivalent to that which is given to
the other people so they have a sensitivity toward torture? And
is it your finding that these judges tend to dismiss this
health care professional testimony? We have heard that from
some of the treatment center workers who are very concerned
about that. It is just dismissed, put off to the side, and not
included in their final decision?
Mr. Cooper. First, we would be delighted to provide a
summary of the training that we provide to the INS asylum
officers.
Of course, that is a different body of adjudicators from
the ones the Immigration judges that are part of the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, and I am sorry, I don't today
know precisely what sort of training it is that they provide,
although I would be glad to pass the request along and see what
sort of information they offer.
Mr. Smith. If you could. If there is a deficiency there,
hopefully that hole can be plugged.
Mr. Cooper. But with respect to the key question I think,
to my knowledge, there is not a pattern of disregard for that
category of evidence. I don't think it would be appropriate for
such evidence categorically to be disregarded. If it were, I
think that is something that would be worth looking into, if
there was some more particular information about that sort of
thing.
Mr. Smith. We will provide it. It really acts as a conduit
between what we have been hearing and getting in touch with
those who have been saying that.
Do you give the same training to overseas refugee officers
as to asylum officers, and do you also train--and this might go
to maybe AID or to Mrs. Gerson--the Ambassadors and the DCMs
about--and I say this with all due respect--some of the
missions that I have been to over the years when I have gone on
human rights efforts, including China, I have been met with
blank stares and outright denials by the highest ranking
people--that is to say the Ambassadors--when I bring up the
issue of torture in their respective countries. I found it
appalling that what is so readily available even in the public
domain in the newspapers seem to have missed their notice. So,
it seems to me that kind of training might also be applicable
certainly to Members of Congress and to Ambassadors who are out
there as our frontline person in a given country.
Mr. Cooper. Well, I can begin from the INS perspective. The
training that we provide to our refugee officers overseas is
not equivalent to the training that we provide to our asylum
officers here in the U.S., and I should also make clear that
the structure of that body of adjudicators differs a bit from
the structure of the body of adjudicators here in the United
States. An asylum officer in the U.S. does nothing more than
decide every day whether or not a person is a refugee, and that
is the only responsibility of that body of officers. Refugee
officers overseas may have additional duties to refugee status
determinations.
But there have been a number of steps taken by the INS in
recent years to try to equate the body of training available to
those two different corps to a much greater extent. One is to
offer a much expanded version of specific refugee training to
our officers who are going overseas to become refugee officers
in that context. The other is, there has been a much, much
greater incidence and investment of resources to have INS
asylum officers serve much more often amid the body of officers
who are going overseas to adjudicate refugee claims there. So,
there is a much greater number of people who actually are from
the INS asylum corps domestically doing those adjudications
overseas.
Although I should also make clear that obviously the
principles of the Convention Against Torture are key for a
refugee officer to understand, especially as they relate, for
example, to dealing with someone who is suffering from the
effects of torture, but it is important to make clear that the
contours of the Convention Against Torture obligation differ
from the asylum program that we have in the U.S. or a program
where we would admit someone into the U.S. as a refugee. The
Convention Against Torture just forbids someone from being
returned to a place where he or she would be tortured, and
obviously it would be contrary to U.S. policy for that to take
place in an overseas context, but the people that we are
admitting as refugees need to meet the Refugee Convention
definition, which differs in certain respects from the article
three obligation under the Torture Convention.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask, perhaps, Mrs. Gerson, Ms. Van Dusen,
or anyone else, shouldn't an equivalent training be given?
Ms. Gerson. Well, I believe that your legislation actually
requested and required that some sort of training for consular
officers who, as you know, are the frontline of interaction
with people who might be seeking a visa as a way of escaping
some sort of a torture or abusive situation. I know that the
Foreign Service Institute has taken some steps, including
meeting with staff of the Minnesota Center for Victims of
Torture, to look at a training segment that could be used at
the Foreign Service Institute. I will have to get back to you
with a detailed report of progress. We have been thinking about
it as something that folks would take at the very beginning of
their service, but I think there is suggestion that maybe a
refresher for Ambassadors and deputies is well taken.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that.
Dr. Van Dusen. If I could just add, Mr. Chairman, we also
do training for our democracy officers at AID and certainly
have done training recently in rule of law issues where human
rights comes up. The other thing that I would mention is that
AID works very closely with the embassy and the human rights
reporting, which does certainly deal with instances of torture.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Mr. Tancredo? Ms. McKinney,
do you have any follow-ups? Thank you.
I would like to yield to our Chief Counsel, Mr. Rees.
Mr. Rees. Thank you. Ms. Limon, you pointed out that ORR
funds can only be used to assist refugees. Of course the
Torture Victims Relief Act authorization for HHS is broader
than that. It does not limit itself to ORR, although I think
that Members of the Subcommittee all think ORR is a great place
to administer it, and it is not limited to refugees. It could
be, for instance, that torture victims would be immigrants
whose status hasn't yet been adjudicated, asylum seekers; they
could be people who came in because of their relationship with
a U.S. citizen, their family relationship, and yet they could
still need that help. Does the President's Fiscal Year 2000
budget request anticipate that broader scope so that if you get
it, whatever assistance you provide to torture victim treatment
centers will not be limited to refugees?
Ms. Limon. Yes, absolutely. We anticipate that; we look
forward to it, actually, because we do consider that a
limitation that has been difficult out in the real world for
the organizations that we fund. We hope that by funding them
through ORR money, that they are able to release other money or
leverage other money to treat non-refugees within their own
centers. The money that we have requested in 2000, we expect to
be used not for refugees but for other folks, and we expect to
continue our refugee funding so that they receive--they are
competitively, appropriately awarded a grant, receiving both
refugee money from ORR and other moneys from this new act.
Mr. Rees. Good. Ms. Gerson, following up on the Chairman's
question about the training and the progress on the training, I
think the act does anticipate that it not just something that
you would get one time in your life, not just Ambassadors and
DCMs. If there are people out there who are dealing either as
consular officers or in some kind of refugee pre-screening
before INS gets to visit the people, I think the act certainly
anticipates that training should be given to them. I guess I
have two questions, which if you don't know the answer, you
could submit for the record. One is the extent to which you
will involve non-governmental organizations that have some
expertise in the training, and, second have you consulted with
the INS Asylum Corps, which I think in conjunction with the
General Counsel's Office has a program of training in these
areas that has become something of a model?
Ms. Gerson. There is an individual with whom we have been
working at the Foreign Service Institute. He had mentioned that
he had consulted with the Center for Victims of Torture in
Minneapolis, but he did not indicate to us what other
preparations have been done to date. I think I have learned
something here, and that is that I can put him in touch with
the INS Asylum Corps if not already--if he has not already done
that, because obviously a one day segment similar to that
described here would be very much appropriate to adapt,
perhaps, to our circumstances. I also wasn't suggesting that we
would only train Ambassadors. I was thinking that a refresher
later after people have that sort of in their basic training
would be very useful. We also have a conflict resolution
training course, which people can sign up for who are working
in areas where conflict resolution and outbreaks of post-
conflict situations exist, and we were looking at incorporating
that in that particular course, as well.
Mr. Rees. Has the training been not actually started yet?
You are still planning it?
Ms. Gerson. It has not actually started yet.
Mr. Rees. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Ms. McKinney has a follow-up question?
Ms. McKinney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have one
final question, and I suppose it would be for Mr. Cooper. What
about victims of spousal abuse? Are they considered to be
torture victims, and why not?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cooper. That is a question that, as far as I know, has
not yet been posed to the adjudication system under the
Convention Against Torture. I would imagine that one of the key
considerations in evaluating a claim of spousal abuse under the
Convention Against Torture would be that the Torture Convention
has a much more rigid requirement than the Refugee Convention
of state action on the part of the person who is causing the
harm. The Refugee Convention recognizes as a persecutor either
the state or an agent the state is unwilling or unable to
control, but the Torture Convention has a much more rigid
requirement of state action. A related question has to do with
whether a victim of spousal abuse is a refugee under the
Refugee Convention, and, as you may know, there has just been a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that sort of
claim, at least in the context presented to the board, did not
make out a claim under the Refugee Convention.
Ms. McKinney. So, what you just said is that a woman who is
victimized by an abusive spouse is not considered to be a
refugee? Is that what you said?
Mr. Cooper. That is probably broader than is correct under
the law, but in most cases, yes, that would be correct under
this recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision.
Ms. McKinney. And how recent was that decision?
Mr. Cooper. I think it was about three weeks ago.
Ms. McKinney. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I just want to, again, thank your
panel. Ms. Limon, you spent some time in Fort Dix recently,
didn't you?
Ms. Limon. I sure did.
Mr. Smith. I hope you enjoyed the hospitality there, and I
want to thank you for the good work you did, and when we did
meet with you up there, I thank you for the hospitality. My
daughter--just a parenthetical--has been doing an internship at
Amnesty International, and she made a trip up there, as well.
Ms. Limon. Did she?
Mr. Smith. But thank you for that.
And I just want to thank our panelists. We look forward to
working with you in your respective positions. The Subcommittee
is very interested in a good, close partnership, and keep up
the good work, and thank you for being here today.
I would like to invite our second panel to the witness
table, beginning with Dr. Judy Okawa, the director of Survivors
of Torture and Severe Trauma at the Center for Multi-Cultural
Human Services. Dr. Okawa is a licensed clinical psychologist.
Her expertise is in the evaluation and treatment of severe
trauma and torture. Dr. Okawa has worked extensively with adult
and adolescent survivors of torture, combat-related war trauma,
rape, sexual abuse, and the multiple forms of trauma
experienced by refugees, both pre-flight and after
resettlement.
Second, we will have Mr. Ali Hoxhaj who is a Kosovar
refugee and torture survivor who is now living in the United
States. Mr. Hoxhaj was taken, along with his brother and 15
other ethnic Albanian Kosovars, by Serb police. They were
tortured, and they were beaten. Mr. Hoxhaj was shot at several
times but was not killed. Mr. Hoxhaj managed to survive by
pretending to be dead.
Our next panelist will be Ladi Olorunyomi, a torture
survivor who was detained three different times by the military
policy in Nigeria. She was held in solitary confinement at a
military base where she was subjected to severe psychological
torture. Last year, Ms. Olorunyomi escaped another threatened
arrest and left Nigeria with her two children. Her family
reunited in February 1998, and they are currently living in the
United States.
Mr. M. is a pseudonym of a torture survivor born in Iran.
During mandatory military service, Mr. M. was arrested because
of his support of Iran Azad, a party that opposed Khomeini. He
was then imprisoned and tortured from August 1992 until
February 1993. Mr. M. was placed under a death sentence but was
released due to connections and bribes from his family. He then
came to the U.S. in 1988 under a student visa. He was advised
not to return to Iran and was granted political asylum in the
United States.
And, finally, Mr. Douglas Johnson is Executive Director of
the Center for Victims of Torture. The center, founded in 1985,
is the first treatment center for rehab of torture survivors in
the United States. Mr. Johnson is also a member of the Advisory
Panel on the Prevention of Torture, which was recently formed
by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to
build an OSCE strategy to end torture in the region. Mr.
Johnson received his Masters in public and private management
from Yale School of Organization and Management.
I would like to ask Dr. Okawa if she would begin.
STATEMENT OF Dr. JUDY OKAWA, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM FOR SURVIVORS OF
TORTURE AND SEVERE TRAUMA, CENTER FOR MULTI-CULTURAL HUMAN
SERVICES;
Dr. Okawa. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today on the crime of torture and the devastating
impact on the human mind, body, and spirit. I want to start by
thanking you for your clear commitment to survivors of torture;
they certainly deserve it. I am happy to see that you are
caring.
In the interest of time, I will abbreviate my statement and
refer you to the testimony in the record. Torture is designed
to break down the human spirit and the personality and to
terrorize communities. It has effects that are not time
limited. Torture survivors report feeling changed for life.
They are profoundly affected physically, emotionally,
cognitively, and spiritually by the horrendous experiences they
undergo, such as having their head dipped in a barrel of fluids
that contain excrement to the point of near drowning or being
forced to witness a child be tortured or being forced to drink
a gallon of gasoline and live in fear that you will then be
burned afterwards.
So, the sequelae of torture are profound, and they can be
disabling if the survivor does not have appropriate treatment.
Survivors suffer from physical ailments, which you would
expect, such as chronic back and join pain, sexually
transmitted diseases, incapacitating headaches every hour of
every day, and foot pain, difficulty walking from falanga,
which is the form of torture where a person is inverted, their
feet are softened, perhaps in water, and the soles of their
feet are beaten, sometimes for hours on end. Nightmares and
flashbacks bring the torture a reality in the present moment.
Sleep disturbances are common. Survivors sometimes report
sleeping less than an hour a night for years, and always there
are the memories, which are intruding at times when they least
expect them.
A torture survivor's ability to trust is shattered, and
their sense of a safe world is obliterated. Many survivors are
hypervigilant; they are constantly on alert for danger. For
example, one survivor put his fist through my wall when he
heard my colleague in the next room slam a file cabinet drawer
shut. He was alert constantly for harm. This hypervigilance
cannot be changed by an act of will. Torture can destroy a
person's ability to feel joy. Anger comes quickly, explosive
anger, with slight provocations, and people around the
survivors cannot understand why can they not control these
emotions?
Profound guilt and shame plague a survivor. Many times
survivors are forced to do things that violate their values,
such as rape or stab or torture other people or give false
information when they know that will result in this other
person suffering terribly under torture. I sometimes wonder if
this shame isn't one of the most difficult things for survivors
to cope with. It is very difficult to work with in therapy. I
remember a survivor telling me that she absolutely was
worthless. She was unforgivable; God could not forgive her; she
could not forgive herself, and no one would ever be able to
forgive her. She said, ``I am worse than filth.'' Torture is a
deeply isolating experience. Survivors often report going
through long periods of time where they wish they could be
dead. Many make attempts.
Survivors of torture also suffer from cognitive
impairments, such as disturbances in memory, difficulty
concentrating, even difficulty staying present in the moment. A
survivor might be here listening to me speak and have the
sensation of going somewhere else; maybe even have the sense of
leaving their body or of going somewhere else in their mind.
One adolescent, 18-year old, who is a survivor of gang rape by
15 soldiers told me that she thought that the reason that the
women killed themselves afterwards compared to the rape victims
who did not kill themselves afterwards was that the ones who
killed themselves were not able to get out of their bodies like
she was. She was able to leave her body and that was how she
felt she was able to survive. This is called dissociation. You
can imagine that if you are a survivor who has memory problems,
cannot remember dates, has separated from the traumatic
experience, you may well be disbelieved at a time like your
immigration interview, because you cannot give a coherent
history of what has happened to you.
Healing is a long, painful process; it can take years; it
can take decades. As Sister Dianna Ortiz, an American who was
tortured in Guatemala said, ``For survivors, getting out of bed
in the morning is an act of survival.'' The smallest thing can
trigger a trauma reaction. Someone in my office was triggered
by my using a clipboard in the interview. I no longer do that.
Other survivors report feeling a trauma flashback by having to
sit in the waiting room waiting for their appointment, because,
often, survivors are made to sit and wait for their turn to be
tortured while they listen to others being interrogated and
screaming. A survivor of rape explained that just a whiff of
cigarette smoke took her back to being surrounded by torturers
who blew their cigarette smoke in her face and then raped her.
The refugee experience itself is described by some
survivors as another experience of torture. The refugee
survivor loses their identify. No longer is this young woman an
attorney; she is a refugee. She feels demoted to a lower stage
in society, loss of career, loss of ability to communicate. Can
you imagine trying to deal with your life using the language of
Somali or Serbo-Croatian or Bosnian? People lose their ability
to provide for their family members.
Survivors of torture have many gifts that they bring to us,
and certainly the survivors who were here last week for the
International Day in support of survivors of torture are
examples of people who bring great strength. There are
survivors in the audience today. Dr. Dodo Mahari is the general
secretary of the Sindh Tarique Passand political party. A
number of survivors that are mentioned in my testimony have
great gifts. They are attorneys; they are priests; they are
writers; they are people that are worth our attention and
caring for.
They have extraordinary accomplishments yet the fact that
they have survived doesn't mean that their life is not a
perpetual struggle. As one survivor told me, ``It is as if I
were a delicate piece of glass that someone put in a paper bag
and then bashed over the rocks over and over. The bag looks
intact from the surface, but inside I feel like thousands of
pieces of glass, all fragmented and only held together by this
thin paper skin that keeps the pieces apparently in one
place.''
There are over 400,000 survivors of torture in the United
States, and most of these survivors are unrecognized; they are
invisible. Many desperately need our help to move from being
surviving to thriving. Because of the extreme traumatic
experiences they have endured, survivors of torture have multi-
faceted needs that need to be addressed by treatment centers
providing comprehensive services. These needs include medical
care to address their physiological sequelae, including
depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances. Survivors desperately
need medical insurance; they need Medicaid--this is not
possible particularly in those who do not have asylum status--
psychotherapy in their own language by a clinician who is
familiar with their culture, social services that address basic
needs like food, shelter, medical care, jobs, language, and
need for referrals, legal referrals, trained professionals to
work with them.
There is a paucity of treatment centers in this country to
meet these complex and interrelated needs of survivors, and
there are absolutely minimal sources of funding for these
centers. In October 1998, 15 U.S. treatment centers formed a
coalition of U.S. torture treatment centers. Although the
Torture Victims Relief Act was passed in 1998, the funds
necessary to provide this relief were not appropriated, as you
are well aware. Funding for the TVRA must be appropriated to
help the U.S. torture treatment programs provide urgently
needed services to the nearly half million survivors in this
country.
You and I are fortunate. Most of us have never had to
experience torture. Once your life has been touched by that of
a survivor, you begin to see the world differently. It is no
longer possible to stay silent in the face of these crimes
against people. So, I ask you to stand in strong support of the
Torture Victims Relief Act to provide funding to torture
treatment centers, both in the United States and abroad. I ask
you to uphold article three of the Convention Against Torture
to protect survivors of torture from being deported to the
countries where they were so severely abused. I ask you to
support the Leahy amendment and the Freedom of Information Act,
and, above all, I ask you to join in the effort to protect the
rights of human beings across the world.
Thank you very much, and thank you for your commitment.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Okawa appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Okawa. Thank you very
much. I would like to ask our next witness if he would proceed.
STATEMENT OF ALI HOXHAJ, TORTURE SURVIVOR, KOSOVO; LADI
OLORUNYOMI, TORTURE SURVIVOR, NIGERIA
Mr. Hoxhaj. My name is Ali Hoxhaj. You will understand that
this is a pen name I am using for security reasons. It is a
pleasure for me to appear before you and tell you about the
misfortune that befell me and my fellow countrymen.
From 1974 until 1993, I worked as a mason in construction
in Croatia. After 1993, I performed the same job in Kosovo.
When the war started in March 1998 and until September of that
year, I lived in my house with my family--my wife, eight
children, three brothers, their families, and my mother. On
September 25, the life of my family changed forever.
About three months before the Serbs attacked our village,
some 2,000 to 3,000 people displaced from different parts of
Kosovo had sought refuge in our village since it was high in
the mountains and did not have paved roads. In the morning of
September 25, the Serbs began their offensive against our
village. We were forced to flee our homes and the village. We
went about a kilometer away but could not travel further,
because we were surrounded on all sides. That night, we slept
in the forest. The next day, September 26, the Serbs arrived in
our village and started to burn it. Then they came in the
forest where we were. They told the first people they saw to
surrender or else they would start firing into the crowds.
There was no chance that we could escape, and we were all
unarmed. The Serbs started to separate the males of 15 years or
older from the children and women. Then they forced women and
children to one side. They searched us for knives or weapons
and lined us up. We were then joined with another group of men.
A Serb separated, one by one, a group of between 20 to 25 men
and gathered us in one place. From that group, he released
about 10. Altogether, there were 14 of us left. Among them were
my brother, my sister's sons, my sister's brother-in-law. My
sister's two sons, age 16 and 17, were released. They beat me
up the most, because I had to translate for my sister's sons
since they did not speak Serbian. They placed a wool hat with a
Kosovo Liberation Army patch on my brother's head, and one
policeman took a picture with him. They asked us whether we
were members of the KLA. Groups of policemen would come while
the village was burning. They came to us after setting fire to
our homes.
After a while, a landrover full of policemen came. We were
all gathered together and were sitting down. The police ordered
us to get up. Three policemen separated my sister's brother-in-
law from the rest of us and started beating him. Then they
ordered us to raise our hands above our heads and to follow the
landrover as it drove away. As we walked, they kept beating us.
They sent us to my neighborhood in the village. We saw our
houses burning. Then they marched us to the third neighborhood
of our village. There, they stopped us and ordered us to stand
on our toes, knees, and head with our hands tied behind our
heads. We were forced to stay in this position for about an
hour and a half to two hours. Then they sent us to the yard of
a villager. Here they ordered us to lay on our stomach near a
fence. They started to beat us, and as other groups of
policemen came, they kicked us and hit us with their rifles,
garden tools, and in some cases they even used knives to stab
some of us. This continued from about eight or nine in the
morning until that evening. Before they started executing us, I
raised my hand to see whether I could ask a question. I asked
whether there was a police inspector who would question us. A
policeman approached me and said he was my inspector. He hit me
on the forehead with the handle of a pitchfork. I started to
bleed and fell to the ground. As it got dark, the policemen
started making loud noises. They called one policeman. As far
as I could tell, that one policeman carried out all the
executions. Immediately after he came, he did not say anything,
just started shooting. He first shot at a person next to me. He
then went to the other end and started shooting continuously
from one end to the other. He then did the same from the other
end. During the first round, I was hit twice--on my left
shoulder and left arm. During the second round, I was hit on my
left hip and right knee. After the two rounds, he kicked one of
the victims in the ribs and said he was alive, and then he shot
him again. He then kicked me, but I didn't move. He assumed I
was dead. I just waited for him to shoot me again.
Thirteen people were executed. I was the only survivor. The
executed were from 25 to 55 years old. Among the dead were my
brother, my sister's brother-in-law, one person from my
village, while the others were from neighboring villages. After
the executions, the police burned a civilian car and then left
immediately. When they arrived in the next village, you could
hear them firing their guns. Then I realized they had left and
forced myself to get up. I could see the houses burning. I
checked to see if anyone was alive. No one moved, and you could
only see the bodies steaming. Then I started walking toward my
house. It took me about 30 minutes to get there. My new house
had been burned, while the old one was still OK. Inside, I
found my family, which had just returned from hiding. I stayed
in my house for 11 days. On the 12th day, I was picked up by
UNPROF. They sent me to the Skopje with my pregnant wife, eight
children, my mother, and my younger brother. During those 11
days that I stayed home, doctors from UNPROF visited me every
other day and took care of me. In Skopje, I stayed 1 month in
the hospital and then I came to the United States.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoxhaj appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Hoxhaj, thank you very much for that moving
account and to be willing, as are other witnesses, as well, to
retell a harrowing experience. It is amazing to me how you and
our other witnesses who are survivors have been able to
overcome such adversity, and in your case to evade additional
bullets by the assassins. So, I just want to say we appreciate
it. It also gives us additional motivation on this Subcommittee
and hopefully those who will read the record to do more on
behalf of torture victims. So, thank you.
I would like to ask Ms. Olorunyomi if she would present her
testimony?
STATEMENT OF LADI OLORUNYOMI
Ms. Olorunyomi. Good afternoon. My name is Ladi Olorunyomi,
and I am a Nigerian journalist, a wife, and a mother. Unlike
Mr. Hoxhaj's testimony, I am going to talk about Nigeria in
peacetime not in wartime, and my experience dates back to 1993
after the annulment of annihilation.
Like I said earlier, I am a journalist, and my husband also
happens to be a journalist. In all, I have been detained three
times. The third detention led me to seek refuge in the United
States. On all three locations, I was never detained for any
political activity or even for my own license as a journalist.
I was always held hostage; on the first two occasions for my
husband and the third occasion for a colleague of his.
The first time I was detained was June 1993--I think it was
June 24 or June 23; I am not quite sure of the date now--and it
was by the special branch of the policy, they came for my
husband. They didn't find him. They found me at home with my
kids. My little baby who was three months old at the time and
who had pneumonia, they took myself and the baby away, and they
only released us after 24 hours, because, like I said, the baby
had pneumonia and was really in need of medical attention. They
released us because of him.
The second detention was in 1994--sorry, 1997 for--I can't
remember how many days--but it was from March--the ordeal
started on March 20, and, again, it was because of my husband
who was already here in the United States on exile then. He
happened to have spoken out against the government from here,
and they saw it on television and as punishment, since they
can't find him, they can get his wife, so they came for his
wife. And it was really a very traumatic experience. I am
talking now of the arrest, because you have a house full of
soldiers--I mean, three soldiers coming to arrest an unarmed
woman in the presence of her two kids who just did not
understand what was going on, because my bigger kid was seven,
the little one was four, and they don't know the first thing
about what was going on. I was kept in solitary confinement for
the first 20 days of the detention and allowed to mix with
other detainees for the remaining time--I can't quite recall
the number of days now.
I don't want to go into too many details, not to waste our
time, but I would like to touch on the culture, the political
culture, that led to that kind of treatment. It was just the
dictatorship by the military, because as of 1993 when my first
detention happened, we were in the 27th year of rule by
military, and military governments by their direction are not
accountable to anybody. There was a complete suppression of all
civil and civic activities. They were not accountable to even
the judiciary, which was still functioning partially. So, there
was a culture of silence and apathy.
Of course, I was not the first detainee. I was not even the
first hostage. There had been many before me, and there were
many after me. It was always the case that if they cannot find
who they are looking for, they will take the next of kin who
happens to be over 10. I say over 10 because when I go to
detention, I met a detainee who is 12. He was held because they
couldn't get his father, and the oldest detainee there was 79
years old. He was held because they couldn't get his son, and
it usually was that kind of thing.
I was lucky I was never subjected to physical torture, but
I was impressed by the lady earlier who asked the question
about denial of medical attention earlier on, because I don't
know if that counts as physical torture, because I was denied
medical attention. Of course, I fell ill. I was in solitary
confinement in a little cell that was infested by rodents and
often you wake up at night, if you get to sleep at all, to find
some animal gnawing at your feet or any other part of your
body, and you can't stop, you can't protest, you can't even ask
for anything, and initially I was fed like once a day, and then
later it improved; I was fed twice a day, and they allowed my
family to bring food down for me, which I consumed.
But, you know, for me, that was just the limit of my
experience, but I was witness to all kinds of the torture,
which--I mean, they were enjoying telling me that ``Well, if
your husband does not keep quiet where he is, this is what you
are going to get next.'' I witnesses people going through the
electric shocks, being hung by their feet from trees, being
tied to trees all day, and of course there were the beatings.
There was a woman like me held because of her husband who was
beaten. They made it a case so that people don't hear her
shout. They beat her only at night, and they beat her night
after night for like two weeks until her husband showed up, and
they let her go. The case of the 79-year old, for instance, was
really pathetic because he lost his--he suffered, what is it
called, cardiac arrest and lost the use of one part of his body
before they finally let him go, and there were so many others
which I don't think--Now, the effects of this in many cases
were outright death.
Being in detention, I was able to see firsthand how they
really maltreat so many people. Like, for instance, we got to
read some of the things they do. We know, for instance, that
when soldiers come in with some clubs, just plain, ordinary
clubs, and they tie up some jelly cans full of water, we knew
somebody has been tortured today, and that person is about to
get up and get dumped somewhere, and usually they would do
these things at night so you don't see. I can't recount how
many bodies I saw being taken out of that place, and in most
cases, I couldn't identify those people, because they were too
burned in the underground detention center. I saw them dug into
the ground somewhere. For instance, we lost a journalist who
until this moment we don't know where he was buried. They
actually only confessed to having picked him up only last year
after he has been missing since 1996, and there were so many
people there who nobody knows where they were picked from, and
nobody knows what eventually became of them.
I met several people there who had really lost their mind.
When I say they lost their mind, I mean they had gone
completely stark crazy, and from what I understood, they came
in there as sane as you and I. I don't know what they did to
them or how they became that way, and I don't know what
happened to them afterwards. For this was for me why I
survived, why I was not physically tortured. I want to make
that special case to this Committee as a recommendation of the
way from incidents like this.
I was not tortured, because as soon as I was arrested, my
husband, who happened to be here, and other friends and
colleagues who are journalists waged, first, an international
awareness about my case and an outcry. Indeed, I should say
that it was that and only that saved me. Because the colonel
who was in charge of the detention camp called me my first day
there and told me that I was going to be there until my husband
returns and that if he does not return before my son who is
seven years old turns 10, they will bring my son in there, too,
to join me, and there was nothing anybody could do about that.
But then when the international outcry started, they just had
to let go. Indeed, when the Ambassador, the United States
Ambassador to Nigeria at that time made a plea on my behalf,
that was only when I was released, and those who did not enjoy
that kind of privilege stayed on and God only knows what
happened to them.
So, my first--I don't know whether to call it a
recommendation or a plea to this good Committee is that this
kind of treatment there should be two steps of measures to
counter it, one in the short run and in the long run. In the
short run, always, I think there has to be a monitoring of
situations in all countries, especially in countries where
there is conflict and where there is potential of conflict. As
soon as it is apparent that there is a potentially conflictive
situation in any country--I don't want to just talk about mine,
but in my country, this was the case--there has to be an
international outcry over the fate of those who are in the
opposition to the government or who are seen as being in
opposition to the government who are going to end up as victims
of this government, because when there is no outcry, a lot of
things happen which nobody will ever be aware of the depths to
which it has gone.
As I am talking to you now, in Nigeria, a Committee has
already been formed by parents who lost their children in the
crisis in Nigeria from 1993 to 1998; parents who lost their
children, whose children have not been accounted for, which is
similar to the situation in Chile, in the years of penochia. We
have such a Committee coming up now, because there are so many
people who disappeared and nobody knows where the hell they
are. The assumption is that they are dead or mad or something,
but nobody knows and nobody has accounted for them. If there
were some kind of international outcry at the beginning of the
conflicts, I think it would have helped a lot.
Second, I have learned that this Committee is thinking of
sending out refugee officers to different countries. I think
that as part of the bilateral relations--perhaps one of the
things you should insist on as part of the bilateral relations
between the United States and any other country like mine that
are happy to have relations with others, there should be a
transparency in the prison system and other holding centers.
There has to be some kind of insistence on that, that there
should be a monitoring of these prisons and the holding
centers, because a lot of horrors go on there which I don't
feel comfortable, I must say that. Even the little eyewitness,
I don't feel comfortable talking about it, because it won't do
any good to have any kind of emotional breakdown here. A lot of
real horrible things go on there. I mean, like human beings
being forced to eat their own excrement, but it does happen,
and it did happen; I did see it, such horrors which really have
to be prevented, and if we have the United States and any other
international monitoring Committee insisting on the
transparency of prisons and other holding centers, a lot of
this can be prevented. They may not be stopped, but a lot can
be prevented, and I think it would go a long way in helping the
situation.
In the long run, for a longer kind of solution, I think
that, first, we should insist on the enforcement of
international conventions against torture on human rights
abusers, because there are so many such conventions. I know
that, for instance, the one of 1984, the U.N. Convention, I
think, Against Torture and Punishment--I don't remember the
exact title, I am sorry--but I know this was a 1984 thing. I
know, for instance, that Nigeria is significant to that
Convention, but Nigeria is not a party to it, and not being a
party to it means that it was not translated into the laws of
the country and also, the U.N. monitoring body does not have
the right to come into the country to look at the human rights
situation in that country, and I think that there has to be an
enforcement of such conventions even if a country as much as
signs it, because torture and the human rights abuses, the
governments that perpetrate it, they are not happy. They are
ashamed of it themselves, and they are not happy to lose their
own human quality, and it is not something they are proud of
that they don't come out to say it. So, if there is an
enforcement of these conventions and they get translated into
laws, into the local laws in the country, it will at least save
us from a lot more trouble than what is seen now.
Second, I think that in the long run there has to be the
United States and this Committee will have to encourage the
building of civic associations; civic associations to
discourage apathy, to encourage free speech, debate, and of
course democracy, because what will happen in my country, for
instance, is that people for 27 years--up to 1993 and now it is
more than that; it is going on 30 years--for several years, we
lived under a culture of silence, and all the civic rights we
enjoyed were dismantled one after the other, one after the
other. People just grew so used to being abused, they grew
silent, very faithful. You bring--when I was arrested, two
loads of soldiers came to arrest me. In my apartment--there
were four apartments in the building in which I lived, and my
neighbors felt quite sympathetic, yes. They took care of my
kids and all that, but they did not raise their voice, because
they knew that to raise a voice means that they will face the
same thing, and it is just like that all the time. This is the
situation that happens every day and perhaps still happens, and
the civic society has almost been completely destroyed, and it
has to be resuscitated for incidents like this to be stopped.
Last but not least--and I know this is a very contentious
issue--where it works, there should be some kind of sanctions
against countries that do things like this. I repeat where it
works. I know, for instance, that it would work in a country
like mine, and I will give you reasons why. At the onset of the
political crisis in Nigeria in 1993, the commonwealth to which
Nigeria belongs, after the slaying of Kansalowua, one of the
most famous writers in Nigeria in 1995, the commonwealth
suspended Nigeria. They also suspended military training, any
kind of collaboration between the military in Nigeria and
Britain and other commonwealth countries. This really hit them
hard. They didn't like that, because a lot of these soldiers
are trained abroad anyway. The colonel in command of my
detention camp was trained in Germany, Brazil, and Britain, and
it really hit him hard that he couldn't go for more training
and to get more equipment. A lot of the equipment they also use
to torture people come from these places. So, the enforcement
of that very limited sanction--it was very limited, you know,
because they had some equipment they were still using anyway--
was bad enough for them. It hit them bad. Of course, they took
it out on us, but at least in the long run it has done some
good now.
So, that kind of sanction, yes, really would work. That
kind of disengagement, lots of multilateral and bilateral
relations really does work, but more severe than that, I think
that multilateral and international aids should be tied to good
human rights standing in countries where there is any kind of
conflict and where there is any kind of political
desterilization and most especially in countries that are ruled
by dictatorship. It is very important that human rights
standing be tied to any kind of multilateral credit coming from
either the World Bank or IMF or even just on bilateral
relations between countries, because what is happening, what we
see happening in some of these countries is that they pick
loans and use it to buy guns. They don't use it to buy guns to
defend the countries; they use it to buy guns to oppress the
citizens, and this is--first of all, that really is not
productive anyway, because it is not used for anything. When
you suppress your citizens, the citizens are useless. They
can't produce anything that will help to repay those loans back
in the first place. In the second place, it only adds to the
bottom of that part of that country and the countries to which
refugees will now start flooding from that repressed country.
So, I think that is indeed important that kind of sanction has
to be there. There should be more normal to not to write credit
to countries that have bad human rights records.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Olorunyomi appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Olorunyomi. Your points
certainly rang very loud and clear with this member. We have
tried in our Subcommittee repeatedly to condition the provision
of non-humanitarian aid, military training, and military
hardware to a number of countries, including Rwanda, including
Indonesia where we have military training and where there have
been serious human rights abuses, including the use of torture
by military units. Your background as a survivor and overcomer
but also a writer from a country where human rights have been
trashed so completely for so long certainly helps to underscore
your testimony. So, we thank you for that, and I can assure you
we will be using your testimony to try to encourage others to
see that there is a link and that governments do stand up and
take notice when you bar training. We are doing right now even
with northern Ireland a resolution that would bar training of
the northern Ireland police, called the RUC, with the FBI
Academy in Virginia because of its ongoing problems and
suspicion of collaboration with terrorism. So, your points were
very well taken, and we do thank you.
Mr. M?
STATEMENT OF MR. M, TORTURE SURVIVOR, IRAN
Mr. M. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee.
I was born in 1961 in Iran and graduated from high school
in 1979. I owned a construction company, a very successful one.
I was arrested for being politically active against Khomeini
and was imprisoned and tortured from August 1982 until February
1983.
I came to the United States to continue my education at
Hamline University in St. Paul. Then the government of Iran
seized all my assets and my family assets, and they were
looking for me. I decided that I could not go back. I had
become homeless and was sleeping by a grocery store. Even after
I had a place to live, I felt wasted and sat home depressed.
Then I was referred to the Center for Victims of Torture.
They helped me to feel safe in this country by supporting me
emotionally and physically. It was very effective treatment,
and I got back to work. My first job was dishwashing. Then I
worked on an ice cream truck on the street. Then I was a taxi
driver; then a gas station owner. Now, I own four or five
companies and employ about 40 to 50 people, and I am sure this
will grow.
But these are not the most important things. I am married;
a very successful marriage. My wife is in medical technology. I
have a beautiful baby who is four and a half years old. My son
can talk and read at four and a half years--talk in two
languages and read English. I am really proud to be here to
talk about these things.
But the main reason for being here, is to talk about the
torture from the bottom of my heart. It takes a long time. The
money, the business--these things everything come and go. They
are not the main issue; but the feeling of safety in the heart.
When I hug my son, still I am scared. When he is smiling at me,
I am scared someone will torture him.
I remember at night. During my torture, one of my tortures
was ``Sit up, sit up, what is your name? Sit up, sit down,
stand up, sit down, stand up, what is your name?'' Not for only
one hour or two hours or 10 hours or 100 hours; snide looks
behind the knives. It was tough. Then they put me out the door
and shot me in the hand as if they were going to kill me. I
hadn't done anything wrong. I just had some ideas. I was young,
just graduated from the high school. I didn't know about
politics that much, but they didn't care.
I remember the night they were killing everybody--it is
tough. When I talk about the torture, I cry. It is so difficult
to describe and to talk about what I feel. When I think about
myself, my wife, and my child seeking room, I am scared. Now I
have money; I have a beautiful house; I have a beautiful wife;
everything is mine, but still I am scared. Still, I am afraid
to sit in my house. I came half an hour early to this room. I
came to the staff; I walked away. The only way I go to a
meeting is to have my attorney with me. Everybody has to be
behind me to work. Still, I am scared. It is difficult to talk
about these things.
I got back on my feet, and was angry at times. I remember
the night I was homeless by a grocery store in St. Paul, and I
wasn't able to think. I was scared; I just went behind the
garbage and hid there. Mr. Chairman, lots of people are wasting
in this country like I was. We are able to work; we are able to
be very successful in our life for ourselves and our community,
but we need help. We need lots of help.
We need a center like the Center for Victims of Torture.
They are the angels in my life. When I hug my son, I am
thinking no one can hurt him again like they hurt me, my wife,
my family. This is tough * * * and it is not meaningful to talk
about the torture, how they do it, and what is the best way.
These things can only hurt us. It is important for the
community to feel safe. The Center for Victims of Torture
helped me a lot, but not everybody does so well. I remember one
time there was a meeting at the Center. I saw some Iranian
people. One of them is a dentist now. He is successful like me.
But some others are not so successful. We need a chance to get
back and do good for ourselves and our family and the
community.
Still, I sometimes have nightmares. Last week, I talked to
Mr. Johnson, and he told me, ``If you need it, come back.'' It
is like my home; it is my real home. After everything that
happened, where should I go to talk about my nightmares, about
my emotions? How could I talk to my son about that? The only
place that I have to go is somewhere like the Center. Everybody
opens up their hands and hugs me, and they understand what I am
talking about. This is the main point. And that is the
safeness. I was talking about.
It is really an honor for me to talk about this and also
painful. I would like to ask you this please help us as much as
possible. To talk about the torture is not easy. I know lots of
people myself, who need help. Sometimes I wake up in the middle
of the night, and I look at my son, and I still cry. One night
when a thunderstorm was coming, my son woke up and saw me
sitting by his bed, and he told me, ``Dad, you are safe. Don't
worry.'' How could I explain to him? Please help by giveing
something--whatever is possible--to the centers. And I hope one
day all torture will be done.
There are lots of heroes. If someone in prison is executed
in another country, they call them a hero. But for those who
somehow get out alive, they are also dying, or thinking about
suicide in silence, and no one knows what has happened. It is
very important to me to support the centers around the world. I
hope one day no one will use them because no one will need
them, but this is reality, and we see people who need them
every day. This is not politics, this is humanity, to help each
other to achieve these goals, good goals.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Smith. Mr. M, thank you very much for your very moving
testimony, and it will be a very strong and persuasive appeal
that Congress and I think all interested people will hear, in
support of the treatment centers, and I do thank you for that.
It does help us to have your testimony and amplify it and
hopefully get others to see the wisdom of more fully supporting
the treatment centers. So, thank you very much.
Mr. Johnson?
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman Smith, for your
leadership and for holding these hearings; Mr. Tancredo, for
your support and participation.
I would like permission to depart from my text and simply
have it inserted. Perhaps the advantage- or disadvantage- of
being ninth on a panel is that the most useful things have been
said, beginning with your own statement at the very beginning
where you noted what had been done and what had not been
accomplished by the Administration. There is no need for me to
repeat that.
I am moved by the testimony before me to reiterate that
what we have learned at the Center for Victims of Torture is
that torture is, first of all, targeted at leaders. The only
reason that governments invest all of the technology and
training people and establishing secret detention camps and so
forth is that this is an effective way of dismantling the
leadership of the opposition. As we have reviewed our client
records, we are constantly amazed at the quality of the people
who walk into our door--people who have been business leaders,
people who have been labor leaders, peasant leaders, religious
leaders. Time and time again, they are people in whom their
societies have invested a tremendous amount of education and
other resources. Their governments have turned against them and
sought to eliminate them. And they do that because by
decapitating the leadership of the opposition, they are able to
create a culture of fear, a culture where people learn to be
uninvolved in public life. Torture is a form of governance, a
very perverse form of governance designed to create a culture
that is able to be easily controlled by a small number of
people. That is what we have learned from the lives of our
clients over 14 years.
Second, although we still have much to learn, we are filled
with the hope that people can recover, that they can become
future-oriented again, that they can be risk takers again, and
like our friend here, that they often have very broad shoulders
that other people stand on in order to help them deal with
their resettlement needs.
In America, providing care for victims of torture is
recovering leadership for the refugee communities here to help
them get along with the process of integrating into our
societies. And for societies abroad, treatment is recovering
leadership for the processes of rebuilding democratic cultures
and societies and civic organizations. That is fundamentally
what treatment and the treatment centers are about.
I would like to thank the Members of the Administration who
were here before, because, certainly, we at the Center for
Victims of Torture have been working with all four of the
offices as well as other parts of the State Department, in
particular, to develop programs for victims of torture. There
are parts of that process that have been extremely encouraging
and parts of that process which have been, if not discouraging,
at least have indicated that more education, funding and
negotiation needs to occur for there to be more progress.
I would like to focus a bit on that. I call attention to
the testimony from the representative from USAID, which was
very similar to the report that they submitted to the
Appropriations Subcommittee earlier this year. The programs
that were outlined are all very interesting, and many of them
are very creative and important for working toward the
prevention of torture. But I think very few of them actually
respond to the needs of torture victims as promote the
development of treatment programs. We find that somewhat
discouraging and still quite puzzling. It is a very important
issue for us, because, of course, when survivors of torture
can't get care in the countries where they were tortured, they
are going to seek that care in the United States or in Europe
or elsewhere.
Recently, three Members of my staff, including myself,
attended a meeting in Copenhagen convened by the International
Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). It was the
second meeting of a new consortium of treatment centers in the
industrial world created to do training abroad and invest
resources to try to create treatment centers in countries of
repression or recent repression. At that meeting, the Torture
Victim Relief Act was widely lauded by representatives from
treatment centers from other parts of the world. They promised
to take this home to Sweden, to Canada, and elsewhere, to use
as a model to stimulate their governments to develop an equally
comprehensive approach to the problem.
So, there was that great enthusiasm. But were somewhat
chagrined to have to point out that so far, despite the
legislation, no money has been made available to help the IRCT
strategy. That strategy is to develop new treatment centers in
about 15 countries as well as to support existing centers, many
of which are operating but not at a level which would allow
them to really be learning centers and to disseminate knowledge
in their communities as well as provide adequate levels of
care.
There are now over 200 treatment centers now in the world,
and currently at least 100 of those are in the developing
world. The later require support from the outside. The IRCT
estimates that about $33 million is needed to provide support
for those centers. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for
Victims of Torture just met last month in Geneva. They had only
$5.2 million to distribute. The European Union has separate
granting programs for victims of torture of about $6 million.
This leaves a gap of about $22 million needed to help secure
these centers and help them grow. The important thing in our
work in the IRCT Consortium, is to give a message both to
Congress and to AID that the expectation is not that they will
work alone in this. All of the centers represented in the
Consortium are going back to their aid agencies to try to
stimulate a coordinated response so that we can work together
to maximize the impact of our resources and maximize the impact
of bilateral aid.
In contrast to AID, we would particularly like to salute
the State Department's energetic support for the U.N. Voluntary
Fund. That has been a very critical piece of work, although I
believe much more work could be done by the Department to help
stimulate other governments to match the American contribution
and to build the U.N. Voluntary Fund to the level that it ought
to be in order to signify a new resource to the world community
in the fight against torture.
We would also like to laud the work of Lavinia Limon and
the Office of Refugee Resettlement on stimulating new programs
to train of refugee resettlement workers and health care
workers in the United States so that they can learn to
recognize victims of torture and, as she said, make appropriate
referrals for care. She reminded us, however, that it is a
rather cruel joke to train a refugee service provider about the
need to refer someone to appropriate care when there is no
appropriate care available or when they are referred only to
face a long wait. At the Center for Victims of Torture, the
waiting list can be as long as six months before people in
desperate need can get access to our services.
In fact, what we need is a more comprehensive Federal
response to this issue. During the war in Bosnia, we were asked
by the government for the first time how many torture survivors
we could take at the Center, and we had to say very few,
because we were so small. We argued then that the United States
should create the capability to respond to emergency needs as
part of our national strategic repertoire. Once again, the same
calls have come asking about support available to highly
traumatized Kosovars and survivors of other very serious human
rights atrocities, and yet our capacity is still limited. In
some ways, the strategy that has been adopted by ORR up to this
point, which was really to ask us to do training of others, has
worked in conflict with our own need to build our clinical
resources. Training increases services overall, but the only
way we can create people who have the expertise in the field to
be good trainers is to first have them involved in very
intensive clinical programs where they learn from the
experiences of working with torture survivors, what their needs
are and specifically what helps them to recover.
We are proposing to ORR that they should make less of a
distinction between programs of training and programs of
clinical work. To meet the strategies of ORR and the USAID and
other agencies who want to begin responding through training to
the needs of survivors, to these needs, we first need to create
experts in the field, and that requires an investment into the
clinical programs in the United States and established the
clinical programs abroad. The latter centers need to be the
community agencies, for example, that AID invests in, so that
they become learning centers in their countries and cultures
and are able then to train others in appropriate responses to
the needs of torture survivors, be they the most serious cases
or less serious cases.
So, assuming that Congress appropriates the funds for the
Torture Victim Relief Act to ORR, we hope it follows the above
approach. Investment in client care is a most effective way to
expand the treatment services available to torture survivors
around the world. Mr. Chairman, I was going to note to you that
the Torture Victim Relief Act was only authorizing funds
through 1999 and 2000. Once again, you are ahead of us. I want
to express our gratitude for introducing H.R. 2367, which
authorizes money under the Torture Victims Relief Act for
Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Also, I appreciate that the
amounts are an increase over current levels. As more centers
develop, they will need the investment of Congress, and we are
grateful to you for taking leadership in this area.
Under your leadership, in both the field of the prevention
of torture and in the care of victims of torture, we have
already seen significant changes in the attitude of our
government toward torture victims. But what has been done so
far is really just the tip of the iceberg of what should be
done. We need your continued leadership and the leadership of
everyone on this Committee to appropriate the level of funds
that are necessary, and while we must not let up our efforts to
prevent torture, we also cannot let down those who have been
afflicted by this horrendous human rights abuse.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Johnson, thank you very much for your
testimony, for your kind remarks, and I just want to publicly
state how grateful this Subcommittee is for your wise counsel,
for your insights that you have provided us. The information
has been of tremendous value in crafting legislation, holding
hearings, and, on a day-to-day basis, trying to mitigate
torture on the prevention side and then, on the treatment side,
to encourage the Administration by legislation and by jawboning
to do more on this very, very important issue. I am very happy
and pleased to hear you say that some of the other countries
are looking to even do more. Certainly, the people in
Copenhagen have done their fair share, and I think we all need
to be doing much more than we have been doing.
There are a couple of questions that I would like to ask.
In terms of national awareness or international awareness, U.N.
conferences sometimes get a bad name, because they don't really
focus on something where the whole world has already spoken--as
they have already spoken with U.N. documents outlawing torture.
Very often, dictatorships, including the People's Republic of
China and many other countries, go through great pains to sign
the document to get all of the international accolades that go
along with that, as the Chinese recently did with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, only to
continue with impunity to violate the rights and to engage in
torture. The Torture Convention certainly is violated with
impunity. As Ms. Olorunyomi has pointed out, Nigeria signed but
there is no implementation; therefore, there is no enforcement.
Perhaps the time has come for a U.N. Conference on Torture
to really focus the world's resources on this barbaric practice
that doesn't belong in any age but certainly not in an
enlightened age, as we hope we are. It certainly ought to be
eradicated from the face of the Earth. To have governments of
the world participate, certainly might lead to a checking of
the use of torture in their countries. Accountability does have
some impact, and there seems to be very little of it. We don't
want you, Mr. Johnson, to have to be in the business forever of
dealing with torture victims. Although, sadly, it will probably
go on for a long time. So, I just throw that out as something
that I think we ought to be thinking about very seriously, and
I ask you to give it some thought.
Let me also say, Mr. Johnson, that I am as frustrated as
you and I believe all of our witnesses are that the
Administration was not forthcoming with money in Fiscal Year
1999 for the overseas treatment centers. In our budget for this
year, they looked long and wide to try to find some evidence
that they plan on meeting the authorized levels for overseas
treatment centers, as well. Hopefully, today's hearing and the
participation of all four of our distinguished witnesses
earlier will get them more energized to find the money; it is
out there. They loathe earmarks on the appropriations side,
although we obviously did it with the authorizing bill. But it
certainly begs the question. If you are not going to meet the
authorization level, then you put the onus on us to earmark,
even though they tell us they don't need it, and they are going
to do it anyway, because the money has not been forthcoming.
So, we will work trying to make sure that money is there for
Fiscal Year 2000.
In terms of questions just for our survivors, it struck me
in hearing all of you, how did you escape? You got out,
obviously, but could you just briefly tell us how you
eventually got out of the country and to the U.S. and whether
or not any of you have any plans of going back? Obviously,
going to Iran anytime soon would be----
Mr. M. Oh, that is impossible.
Mr. Smith. Impossible.
Mr. M. Yes.
Mr. Smith. But how did you escape?
Mr. M. I waited in a third country until there was some way
under the table that I could find my family. Let me put it this
way: Mr. Chairman, even our home telephone has been seized by
the revolutionary guard. When I got out of the prison, finally,
my father got one of these houses and some money to a third
person to get me out of there, and by help of the organization
and key people, they got me out of the country to continue my
education. Then bad things happened at home and I could not go
back.
Mr. Smith. Were U.S. immigration officers at all
sympathetic to the fact that you had been tortured?
Mr. M. That is a problem. One time, we had a meeting at the
Center with INS people. The biggest problem when people like me
go to a company, when we go to a bank, or somewhere, is that
they want documents what is my financial statement, what is
going on? When I got out of prison, how could I show a
passport? How could I go back to Iran to ask Mr. Kohmeini for
the passport? How could I ask them to give me documents after I
was in the prison? How could I fell my torturers ``Sir, they
need documents''?
Mr. Smith. Understood, were they disbelieving of your
story?
Mr. M. Oh, absolutely. They need the documentation. They
need documentation. I was probably one of the luckiest people
at being believed in the United States, because the
organization was behind me, but how about the rest of people?
My brother escaped from the prison of Iran three years ago. I
got him back to Europe; a lot of things were involved; the
Center for Victims of Torture was involved. Even Mr. Johnson
went to the Netherlands to visit him with two other people. The
INS in Rome looked at his case. They asked us, ``Where is the
documentation?'' I tolded the guy, ``He will be in the jail
until he is 50 years old, if I need documents. How could I show
documents to INS? Could I ask Iran for a birth certificate for
my brother? A Passport?'' That is tough, but hopefully they
understand now and it is much easier, I believe.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Olorunyomi, you mentioned that the
Ambassador had interceded on your behalf?
Ms. Olorunyomi. Excuse me?
Mr. Smith. That the U.S. Ambassador had helped you?
Ms. Olorunyomi. Yes. What happened, in 1997, I was beaten
twice. The first, March 20, it was only because the United
States Ambassador did request that I should be released that I
was finally released even though there was the international
outcry, which saved me from the torture but didn't get me
released.
The second time I was detained in 1997, the night of
November 2, this time it wasn't because of my husband; it was
because of a colleague of his whom they wanted, and they didn't
get him, and they wanted me to lead them to his house to
wherever they could get him. In this case--I don't want to go
into details--what happened was that, at this point, there was
no Ambassador. It was someone in your embassy in my country,
and there was no Ambassador then. But I was contacted by other
officers of your embassies and was offered refuge, if I so
desired. But I was reluctant to accept at that point because of
my kids and all that. It took only a week to help me make up my
mind, because exactly a week after that incident, I got a call
from a friendly person who told me that they were coming again
that night and that I had better get out of the house. So, we
got out of the house; we went into hiding, and so I went back
to contact this same gentleman in your embassy who had told us
before that if we ever needed help, they would be there to
help. But we had no papers of any kind--myself and the kids--
and we had to arrange for some people to smuggle us out of the
country one night. So, what eventually the embassy did was to
get us some contact in the American embassy in Ghana. ``Just
tell them to expect us, and I will be there, and if they could
help us with documentation to come here,'' and that was
eventually what happened. That was quite a week. It took such a
long time to get here.
But like he said, the problem of resettling is related to
just business, because, first, we came in with just our
documentation we were given that day in Brazil and that brought
us into the country, but it does not get past the INS, all the
procedures of the INS, and all that we still have to get a lot
more papers, which often are not forthcoming, because of the
way we lived, and we have to get collaborative evidences from
all our sources and all that, which sometimes is like you need
a lot of luck to scrape through.
Up to this moment that I am talking to you, I still don't
have any kind of permanent status, and that is important for me
and especially for my kids, because the trauma we went through.
I haven't been to the Center for Victims of Torture, because I
have told myself that I have to fight to go through this
myself. But for my kids, for instance--I don't know if the
Center for Victims of Torture have anything for kids--for my
kids, for instance, it has been really a bad week. Up until
this moment that I speak to you, they can't sleep in their room
by themselves, because I don't know what happens to the
psychology of kids seeing guns and having soldiers visit your
house at night and all that stuff. I don't know what it does to
them. I really am trying, but it has been more than and by
sticking them back so further because immediately so far they
don't feel safe. Forget the nightmares and all that; that is
standard. Of course, they have been through it, and they are
still going through it, OK, but I don't know if your center has
anything for kids, but you know it has become almost a medical
condition which we are managing, which we cannot manage back in
the country, because it is not stable. It is not quite that
civil yet.
And while I am still on that topic, I must say that
whatever support the Center for Victims of Torture is looking
for, it is more than words of cause. In a country like mine, if
we really do need such a center, and we need it not just for
the victims, we need for the torturers themselves. I
encountered soldiers in detention who were torturers, but the
process of making them into what they became destabilized them
so much that they themselves lost it, and they were dismissed,
and let into the streets to do God knows whatever. And they
made the whole streets unsafe for business, for anybody. We
need a support structure like the Center for Victims of Torture
back home, and all that.
So, I don't know if that has answered your question.
Mr. Smith. I appreciate that. Mr. Hoxhaj? Do you want to
just do it in English? I saw your translator.
Mr. Hoxhaj. [speaking through a translator] The way he got
out was that I guess the OSC had just gotten in and about three
days after the massacre they showed up, and I think it took him
like about 12 days to work out a way for them to get them out
of the country, and they got them out. And it is funny that you
ask, will he go back? When I first met him, the first question
he asked me is, ``Will anybody stop me from going back?''
Mr. Smith. That says a lot. Thank you. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. I did want to say, regarding your question and
issues that have been raised here, that we are concerned that
the immigration reform bills that passed Congress several years
ago really put, I think, an undue burden on torture survivors
who arrive in the United States without proper documentation.
The case that was referred to was one example, but, typically,
people are escaping and often their documents are in the hands
of the police. They are not going to get them back. We have
several cases in Minnesota that we have been concerned about
where torture survivors, when they have arrived, have simply
been put in county jails and often kept there for extended
periods of time. This is in itself retraumatizing. One client
of ours was jailed through an extremely sloppy INS process, and
began having heart problems almost immediately for the fear of
being sent back.
So, we know that these situations are extremely
frightening. People don't know what is going to occur and it
isn't explained well to them. They often have no access to
legal counsel, and the threat to the survivor is ``We are just
going through a process to send you home,'' which is precisely
what they have struggled against. I know that there are
situations, certainly, where we need to secure our borders, but
at the same time it is extremely important that these
procedures are sensitive and responsive to the needs of torture
victims, the people we should be protecting.
Mr. Smith. Is it your view that the training is proceeding
sufficiently in such a sufficient way----
Mr. Johnson. No.
Mr. Smith [continuing].--that there are enough people out
there to make sure that doesn't happen?
Mr. Johnson. No. And I think if you talk to the people in
the INS training program, they would also say with some
frustration that the resources are not available for adequate
training, and we would say that it was too bad that section of
the Torture Victim Relief Act was removed for various reasons.
Certainly working with people for half a day to try and get
them some skills is a way to start; but then they need to be
coming back for follow up. After they have some experience in
the field and they start having doubts and questions, then they
need more intensive training on how to handle these issues. So
far, we have only had the opportunity to work with one group
form INS political asylum leadership for an very extensive
program of two weeks conducted by our center and the one at
NYU/Bellevue. We have recommended one week of intensive
training for all the roughly 350 political asylum officers.
They, as a first priority all need to go through some form of
training of this sort. But then we haven't even addressed, for
example, training for INS officers at the ports of entry to
determine credible fear and so forth. As far as I know, there
has been no training whatsoever for that group of people.
So, there is progress. We are also talking with the Foreign
Service Institute about how they could implement the
requirements of the Torture Victim Relief Act, but there is a
lot of work left to be done.
Mr. Smith. Earlier, one of the witnesses had said that some
of the people might even appear to be stark crazy or that such
an ordeal obviously could drive somebody to that status. How
many people do you think we turn back who just appear don't
have it together? Their story has holes in it, because they
can't remember in a way that somebody who hasn't been through
such trauma might remember it. They might have their dates
wrong; they might have their years wrong, and somebody says
``Oh, fabricator, out they go.'' They are not going to be given
a real shot. Dr. Okawa? Because it seems to me that we miss a
lot of real victims. I mean, there is layer upon layer, and
they are confused, and that is where that training, perhaps,
might help.
Dr. Okawa. You are absolutely right that the survivors are
not recognized. There is a mass of survivors that are not
known, and their symptoms are not understood. I couldn't give
you a number estimate, but the cases that I get are often
survivors who have been denied and have gone through two legal
processes already with INS. The point where I come in is at
their final chance to stay. An immigration attorney may refer
the client to me for a trauma evaluation to determine if their
symptoms are consistent with the reported experiences. In many
cases I cannot understand how they ever could have been turned
down, because their histories of torture are profound. But
because the client cannot tell a consistent story, a coherent
story, and because often they may be so emotionally numb, which
is one of the symptoms of trauma, that they don't cry so it
doesn't appear that they really did experience the torture,
they are denied. So, I think many, many survivors are turned
back, and they are petrified to be sent back to their country.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just, actually, a
couple of very basic questions I think for Mr. Johnson in
regard to the centers, and it goes to what we are talking about
here, my first one. How do you actually determine that the
people with whom you are dealing are the people who they say
they are?
Mr. Johnson. Well, it is a complicated issue for us,
because when people have been tortured, they are told that no
one will believe them, and as a therapeutic stance, our stance
has to be to believe them. People need to know that they will
be believed, and that is an essential part of the bargain of
building a trusting relationship necessary for treatment. This
is one of the reasons that our program does not provide
documentation for political asylum cases. We don't see
ourselves as an advocate at that level. We only do that for
clients who have been seen by us for 50 to 100 hours, so that
we know them pretty well. And being very experienced, our staff
is able to understand when inconsistencies might have something
to do with hiding a story as opposed to an inability to
remember. When that has happened in the past, occasionally we
have discovered that people are hiding that they themselves
have been perpetrators as well--something that has just been
raised as an important problem. More commonly, people feel that
there is some part of their story that is still so shameful
that it would keep them from being accepted by others and so
they feel a need to hide it. Generally, these things work out
clinically over time. There have been a few times when we have
been surprised, not that the person was a survivor, but about
their right name or something of that nature, and to what
degree they are hiding it.
An INS officer really does have a responsibility to sort
out the facts and make those judgments. That is not our
responsibility or our role. I think we hope to help the officer
understand that even we might feel we make mistakes, even
though the officers are going to have an hour with them and we
might have 50 hours, and that it is okay on some level to make
mistakes. But our view is that it is better to err on the side
of protection of torture victims than on the side of
restrictions that would destabilize a torture survivor.
The other important issue is for INS officers to understand
the range of emotions that they can expect from someone,
something that Dr. Okawa just referred to. People often have an
uneducated image of what a torture victim should look like that
doesn't usually fit the clinical picture. And so it is
important to work with INS officials to help them understand
what the range of emotional responses, and intellectual
responses could be from a survivor, so that they can pursue
their job within a more scientific framework.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you. Of the 400,000 that we have--that
figure that we have referenced several times indicating that
was the number of victims of torture who are present in the
United States, how is that arrived at? How did we come up with
that? Is that an INS----
Mr. Johnson. I would say it is a ``guesstimate'' from the
community and from us based on a number of studies and factors.
It is partly based on a series of clinical studies of various
populations of refugees in the United States and in Europe. The
clinical studies revealed the numbers of torture victims in the
clinical groups and these numbers were applied, for example, to
the Cambodian population. A number of early studies in the
early eighties indicated that about 30 percent of the
Cambodians had gone through Pol Pot's camps and experienced
torture.
Mr. Tancredo. I see.
Mr. Johnson. Then there are certain other factors. For
example, in 1990 to 1995, the U.S. admitted 100,000 survivors
of the Vietnamese reeducation camps. When we look at the human
rights reports of the reeducation camps, we would have to
conclude that pretty well everyone who was there is a survivor
of torture in one form or another. And, so, basically, the
estimate comes from an amalgam of different considerations.
Now, in April 1997, under the leadership of Senator
Wellstone, the National Institute of Mental Health, ORR, INS,
and a couple of other Federal agencies met with the treatment
centers around the world to try and address precisely this
issue of ``How do we know? How do we really get a grip on the
extent of the need this?'' One result was a small series of the
National Institute for Mental Health grants including one, for
example, received by the medical Director of the Center, which
are attempts to do more in-depth, scientific studies of
particular communities so that we can build a better way of
documenting the numbers of people. One problem is that torture
victims, largely, don't self-disclose. There is a lot of shame
and fear about self-disclosure. Many medical people don't want
to ask the question, because of their fear, ``What would I do
if I knew? '' And so the guesstimate needs to be replaced by
more serious scientific inquiry.
I might add again that the first version of the Torture
Victim Relief Act that you introduced, Congressman Smith,
called for CDC, I believe, to do a national study of the
torture victim population. They basically said, ``We don't know
how to do that.'' The April 1997 meeting and resulting NIMH
grants were throught of as a way to build some experience in
the field before a more specific national demographic study.
Mr. Tancredo. Yes, well, it just seems as you attempt to do
a number of things, including siting a center, where do you put
it? How did you decide where you were going to be and if there
were more that we were going to establish, where would they be?
How would we come to those conclusions unless we had a pretty
good idea of exactly what population we are talking about,
where they are, and where their needs are greatest?
Mr. Johnson. Exactly. Well, we do know which communities
are most heavily affected by torture and where those
communities tend to settle. For example, as I understand it,
about 24,000 Somalis have come to the U.S. in the last three or
four years, and of that group, 16,000 are in Minnesota. So,
here is a population grouped in one area that has been very
highly traumatized by torture and by war and is in need of
services. There are other pockets of substantial groups of
torture victims, but you would have to assume that almost every
major city in this country that has a refugee population has a
substantial number of torture survivors.
Mr. Tancredo. And are most of the people who come in to
your center--is it just by word of mouth? How do they--is that
how they find you?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we don't advertise, because we always
have a waiting list. We try to create a situation where people
are referred to us by refugee leaders, by other health care
groups, or by human rights or related sorts of organizations.
Mr. Tancredo. And is it primarily psychological services?
Does it expand beyond that?
Mr. Johnson. We have on our staff a team of physicians,
including family practitioners and internists, a team of
psychiatrists, a nurse, and social workers, in addition to our
staff psychologists. There is also a whole network of surgeons
and dentists and others who work as volunteers. We also have a
team of volunteer physiotherapists and a team of volunteer
psychologist. There are about 150 additional volunteers who
work every week with clients on finding housing, setting up
food, organizing in our churches for getting people involved in
rebuilding community of various sorts, tutoring English as a
second language or doing day care. We try to provide programs
for families to help our clients become leaders again in our
community. Eventually, many of our clients, because they have
been leaders, go out to start their own non-governmental
organizations or businesses. We also recruit volunteers to sit
on our board of directors.
Mr. Tancredo. Well, you can see how difficult it is in the
way that you could become a victim of your success in that
going back to the very first question about how you know with
whom you are dealing. If you are providing the kind--if you are
looking at this holistic approach toward treating these folks--
dealing with them, I should say, your clients, it certainly
could--I could see a situation where people would desire your
service even if they, perhaps, have not experienced the----
Mr. Johnson. The most extreme forms of torture.
Mr. Tancredo. Exactly. And, therefore, resource allocation
becomes a problem, and that is what I was trying to get at.
Mr. Johnson. Exactly.
Mr. Tancredo. Anyway, I really appreciate it, because I had
mentioned these are basic questions. I am on the other side of
the learning curve here on the Committee.
Mr. Johnson. Could I tell you what we did in response to
that very important question?
Mr. Tancredo. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. We have seen ourselves not only as a treatment
center but as a constituency organization trying to make
Minnesota, as an example, a safe place for survivors. We found
that our legislature and our political leaders understood the
view, that torture victims were targeted because they were
leaders, and if given care, will be leaders again, capable of
making tremendous contributions to our State. I should note
that Lavinia Limon mistakenly said we never started with state
funding; we have been privately funded for the most part. But
for the first time two years ago, the legislature challenged us
to train all of the health care systems in the State of
Minnesota so that what we believe to be about 14,000 victims of
torture would get greater access to care. We are essentially
making a deal with those health care providers that they will
open up their doors to the people who are already in their
system but who aren't being treated as torture victims. They
will begin to develop that expertise, and we, in turn, will
take from them the most difficult cases, the ones that require
the most comprehensive level of services. So, we can set up
layers of services within the state so that we can respond as a
State to the full range of needs, while not assuming that every
survivor needs all of the kinds of services that the Center
offers.
The legislature also took this question of children
survivors. We know that children of holocaust survivors have
higher rates of depression and suicide than the population at
large, and yet in St. Paul, Minnesota, our capital, something
like 35 percent of the children in public schools and our State
capital are refugee children. A large percentage of them are
very likely to have gone through some kind of human rights
atrocity in their families. So, we began a project funded by
the legislature to work in Minnesota schools to teach how to
work with refugee children as trauma survivors.
My point in bringing up these programs is that they show
how we are trying to become a learning center for our State, to
concentrate, certainly, expertise in a group of clinicians,
people like Dr. Okawa, to give them a chance to work full-time
in this area, but in turn, to spin off other services that more
broadly affect the communities. In my view, again, when AID
talks about the need of developing community responses, they
are ignoring the need, first of all, to create real expertise
on how to deal with the worst cases and then to let these
experts begin to develop the learning for the rest of their
community. That is what we are trying to do at the Center, and
we think it has been an extremely productive model.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Will the gentleman yield on that? Mr. Johnson,
do you share that Minnesota statute, for example, and that
policy with the League of States or some other entity with
other States so they can pick up on that basic policy?
Mr. Johnson. Well, the other States don't have the centers,
and so it is very hard for them to do it.
Mr. Smith. Some of the States do.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, and we do share it within the consortium
of treatment centers in this country that Dr. Okawa talked
about and with the treatment centers abroad to encourage
learning from each other as much as possible and new policies.
Mr. Smith. Yes?
Dr. Okawa. I would like to speak just a second to the
incidence of torture survivors in the Washington area. Unlike
CVT, the Program for Survivors of Torture here in Virginia, in
Falls Church, Virginia, is fairly new. We have been seeing
torture survivors for years in the center in which we are
located, but we received funding dedicated specifically to
torture survivors a year ago, and in the first six months, with
no advertisement, we had 96 referrals from Virginia, D.C., and
Maryland. So, there are many, many survivors, and these
survivors often say, ``Oh, I wish you could see all my friends,
all the people in my housing complex, all the people in my
organization.'' So, there is a great need in the Washington
area.
And one other point I would like to make is about the
children. We do a lot of work with children of survivors,
because there is an overflow effect of torture and trauma. It
is almost like a big fountain where you have this huge deluge
of water and it fills up the basins below and falls over into
basins below. So, the trauma falls over to the children and
then to the children's children and so on, unless there is some
interruption of this cycle. And we have a specialist at our
agency who works with children of war trauma and children of
survivors of torture. We feel that it is a very important area.
I'm glad you brought it up, because I know you worry about your
children, and they do show the effects of the trauma
experienced in their family or by their parents. As Yael
Danieli quoted, ``Children bear the burden of memories that are
not their own.''
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. First of all, let me
conclude by thanking our distinguished panelists. I can tell
you without any fear of contradiction, your testimony will make
a difference in U.S. policy, with this Subcommittee and those
who will read it. We will pursue the activist agenda that we do
have with regard to legislation admonishing the Administration,
being an adversary when they are dropping the ball, which
regrettably they have done on occasion. But there are also some
good things, as you pointed out, Mr. Johnson, that we can be
very grateful for. In making sure that we all do the maximum
possible and encourage other countries to do so as well, your
testimony will make a difference. So, I want to thank you for
taking the time and for your dedication. It truly is inspiring.
Thank you.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
JUNE 29, 1999
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1381.020