A time to support human rights


Here’s what we’ve done in 2016:

  • Launched the world’s first university-based open source Human Rights Investigations Lab. We have trained more than 40 UC Berkeley students how to use publicly available sources to investigate human rights abuses. Through the lab, students are verifying and corroborating video footage and photographs from Syria and elsewhere for use in media and human rights reports and, potentially, as evidence for international courts. The lab is now gathering and verifying incidents of hate speech in the wake of the U.S. election. Read about our lab in New Scientist.
  • Awarded human rights fellowships. Our twenty 2016 Human Rights Center Fellows worked side by side with local organizations on the front lines in 10 countries this year, and recently presented their work at our annual fellowship conference.
  • Initiated anti-human trafficking research. We are studying law enforcement’s response to sex and labor trafficking in California and finding ways to better protect and support survivors.
  • Provided legal expertise for cases against perpetrators of wartime sexual violence. We are continuing to provide legal consultation to international courts.
  • Responded to the refugee crisis. Julie Freccero, associate director of our Sexual Violence Program, is coordinating the global response to gender-based violence in Greece’s refugee camps. We are also embarking on new research on unaccompanied refugee children and LGBTQI refugees in Europe and northern Africa.
  • Organized the Gun Violence in America event series. Our year-long series has featured acclaimed Berkeley linguist George Lakoff as well as leading firearm researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute. More events to come!

Each year, we raise 95 percent of our budget from foundations and individuals like you. Thank you for making this work possible in 2016 and for your support in 2017.


—The Human Rights Center Team

Berkeley Human Rights Q&A #8

California takes lead on gun violence research, thanks to this man

Dr. Garen Wintemute

Dr. Garen Wintemute—an emergency medicine doctor and one of the nation’s leading firearm violence researchers—has reason to be optimistic. After weathering the federal government’s decades-long divestment from gun research (by simply funding it himself with more than a million dollars of his own money), he will direct the new state-funded University of California Firearm Violence Research Center from his UC Davis campus. And he’s got at least $5 million to do it.  Wintemute and his colleagues have led a public health approach to gun violence, which results in 30,000 deaths and 75,000 injuries a year. He studies the epidemiology of that violence—conducting rigorous research to combat myths, illuminate truths, and feed policy recommendations. He comes to campus this week as the first speaker in Berkeley’s Gun Violence in America series.

Watch the livestream on Wed. 9/21 at 5 pm.

Q. What was your relationship to guns growing up?

A. There were guns in the house—it was the 1950s and 1960s. The thing to do in my neighborhood was to play army. All the kids had toy guns, and we would play with them for seemingly hours on end. I actually was offered a job by the YMCA teaching riflery full time—at least as summer employment—but chose another job instead. And to fast forward that into adulthood, I enjoy shooting. I used to be pretty good at it, just haven’t done it in a long time.

You have to keep pushing, because people are dying, but it’s unrealistic to expect that society is going to turn on a dime…

Q: Where did your commitment to firearm research come from?

A: I was working as an emergency medical physician in the 1980s and became very interested in preventing the injuries that brought people through the doors of the emergency department. On top of that, early on I spent five months in Cambodia. This was right after Pol Pot’s time, in an area where combat still went on. We would hear landmines go off and wonder if we would see that person or not.

Q: What are some of your more surprising research findings?

A: I work hard at maintaining equipoise and so I am not often surprised. The trick is to go in without prior expectations, if possible. More than surprise, it is the sheer joy of discovery—of crunching some numbers or interviewing some people and realizing in one way or another: here’s important new knowledge and right now I am in that rare and very privileged position to be the person who knows about it and can bring it to the world and relieve suffering as a result.

They were concerned that research might be substrate for changing firearm policy in ways that harmed their interests. So they arrived at the entirely logical conclusion that if the research was threatening, the thing to do was to prevent the research from being done in the first place.

Q: That must be really gratifying, but isn’t it incredibly frustrating when the response to some of this nuanced research is met with simplistic arguments?

A. Yes, there is frustration, but the important thing is to let the frustration go. This is a controversial issue, and there are people who will react negatively without bothering to see what the research is actually about. Frustration comes from impatience and it’s really important to be patient. You have to keep pushing, because people are dying, but it’s unrealistic to expect that society is going to turn on a dime on this issue.

Q: Do you think we’re close to any kind of tipping point for gun regulation?

A: Whether it’s regulation or something broader, I absolutely do. We’ve seen for the past four years now, a breadth and a depth of concern in society about firearm violence that simply was not there before. Although they are relatively rare events, public mass shootings have a great deal to do with that change in attitude. There is a reason for this: with ordinary homicide, much of any society can tell a story that writes them out of the risk picture, if you will. They can say, “homicide happens to people who don’t look like me, who don’t have my demographics.” Suicide, which is much more common, we just don’t really talk about much at all, so it’s easy to ignore. But public mass shootings can’t be put at a distance. “They don’t happen in places I know not to go to. They happen in precisely the kinds of places that I do go. They don’t happen to people I can distance myself from either socially or demographically. They happen to people just like me.” So, for the first time, I think, everybody recognizes that the risk extends to them. And frankly we greatly overestimate on average our risk of being in a mass shooting, but the critical difference is that everyone understands that this is not somebody else’s problem; it’s their problem.

Q: You’ve said that public perceptions about mass shootings are also one of the biggest myths surrounding guns.

A. Public mass shootings account for less than one percent of deaths from firearm violence in the United States. But they are one of the things driving the current public perception about firearm violence. Firearm violence is in the public mind on a day-to-day basis now in a way that it just hasn’t been. Some of the reactions are beneficial. There is clearly an interest in doing more about preventing violence. But other reactions are arguably detrimental. Every time there is a mass shooting, sales in firearms spike. There is solid evidence that having easy access to firearms increases one’s risk of death or serious injury from firearms. Firearms are durable products, and every time sales spike, there’s an influx of these durable products into society. We are going to be living with the results of that influx for decades.

Not doing research on firearm violence is like not doing research on motor vehicle injuries and, although the scales are different, not doing research on cancer or on heart disease.

Q. What are some of the big myths you see in terms of public perceptions about guns?

A. There are so many. One is that rates of firearm violence are decreasing. They are not. If you combine suicide and homicide at the national level they haven’t budged an iota in the last 15 years—although they may have ticked up in 2015 and 2016. We just don’t have the data yet. Interestingly, during that same period of time, when there has been no change overall nationwide, the rate of fatal firearm violence has gone down here in California by more than 20 percent. We are going to be investigating the very interesting question of why that is.

Q. Is there shoddy research out there?

A. There is. People have accepted data uncritically, or not thought carefully through the assumptions that underlie their work. Or they have leapt to inappropriate conclusions. A number of us have had to spend time—sometimes privately as reviewers and sometimes publicly as commenters and editorialists—calling out junk science. This really makes me angry on several grounds. I would rather be doing good science than critiquing bad science. When I read these papers, I think these people are doing unsophisticated, careless, slipshod work. But to be honest, the thing that makes me angriest comes from not my background as a scientist but my work as a clinician. Real people are dying. Real people are being disabled. To do crummy science is to show disrespect for those people. And to me that’s absolutely intolerable.

Q. Why and how did the Centers for Disease Control defund research about guns?

A. In the late 1980s, rates of firearm violence started climbing rapidly again in the United States. We did something very laudable, something that we take pride in as a country when faced with a crisis. We mobilized. Money was becoming available for research. People were starting to do really solid research. Congress was interested in putting the results of that research into action. But that, from the point of view of some vested interests, was precisely the problem. They were concerned that research might be substrate for changing firearm policy in ways that harmed their interests. So they arrived at the entirely logical conclusion that if the research was threatening, the thing to do was to prevent the research from being done in the first place.

Q. Who spearheaded this effort in Congress?

A. Jay Dickey, from Arkansas, who described himself at the point person for the NRA, caused to be adopted into CDC’s budget language a provision that CDC’s funds could not be used to “advocate or promote gun control.” Nothing was actually said about research. But what Congress did was take from CDC’s budget an amount equal to the amount that it had been providing for research and give it back to CDC earmarked for another purpose….President Obama brought this up in January 2013 after Sandy Hook. Research, he said, is not advocacy. He directed CDC to do research. He asked Congress for $10 million to fund it. He is still asking. Mr. Dickey himself has had a change of heart and for several years has called for more research on firearm violence. He and Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who headed CDC’s injury prevention program in the 1990s, wrote a letter to the California Legislature strongly supporting the creation of the new research center.

Q. So you funded the research yourself.

A. Not doing research on firearm violence is like not doing research on motor vehicle injuries and, although the scales are different, not doing research on cancer or on heart disease. It’s absurd to think that we can deal effectively with a complex problem like this without understanding it. I came to the decision that I would keep this program running.

Q. But that’s all changing now in California. Will Governor Brown’s new commitment to researching gun violence make the state a leader, like we have been on climate change?

A. Yes, no question about it. …The existence of the center and the work that it will do will create a foundation of evidence that won’t exist anywhere else.

Q. Where will you start?

A. There’s absolutely no part of firearm violence about which we know enough. We’re going to start with the very basics. We are going to look in detail at the epidemiology of firearm violence in California. For some of that work we will use available data because the available data are good. The last time anybody did a solid, even cross sectional look at the epidemiology of firearm violence in California was 1987. I know because I did that study. We are also planning to do a large-scale survey to learn about the prevalence of firearm ownership, factors associated with firearm ownership, and the benefits that firearm owners attribute to firearm ownership. We will also be asking about firearm violence. What are the prevalence and intensity and consequences of exposure to it?

Q. How many more researchers will be involved?

A. Nationwide there are maybe a dozen or 15-ish people who have had this problem as their major focus for a long time. And this is a health problem that kills 30,000 people a year and is responsible for perhaps $200 billion in aggregate societal costs. And here are these 15 people. This is just wrong. There’s going to be a core group of four investigators here at UC Davis, and we have many collaborators here and at other institutions. And there will be one or two people as the nucleus of a team at each of the partner campuses. And we’ll build from there. Speaking of which, we are recruiting…

Q. How will the research you do become policy?

A. We’re in Sacramento, not in Davis, and not just because that’s where the hospital is. I work with the legislature and state agencies all the time. They are 10 minutes from where I am standing now. It’s absolutely possible to do research and talk with policymakers about the implications of that research and to work with them directly on the translational effort that moves research into effective policy. In California, it almost goes without saying that once the policy is adopted, it gets enforced and someone circles back to see if it’s doing what it’s supposed to do.

Q. Do you ever feel that if you could just prove one thing, it would change everything? Is there some Holy Grail out there on gun violence?

A. There is no Holy Grail, no final dispositive piece of truth that will make all this right. Truth is not a destination. Truth is a direction. We continue to learn. Good research is better than the research that comes before it and not as good as the research that follows. We build on each other’s efforts. It’s important to remember that we are doing science in the public interest. One of the reasons I like doing clinical work in the emergency department is that it reminds me of who I am working for.

Q. It must be so exciting to finally have resources to do something.

A. I can’t put into words how thrilling this is. Today, our little building was buzzing with people working on three or four different projects at the same time. I just stood in the center of the building listening and looking around and thinking: This is a dream come true.

Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins joins the Human Rights Center

Award-winning citizen journalist Eliot Higgins

Award-winning citizen journalist Eliot Higgins has joined the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley School of Law as a Research Fellow, as part of the center’s Human Rights Investigations Lab.

Higgins, founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog, is a global leader in the use of social media and other publicly available sources to investigate conflict, including human rights violations. He publishes the work of an international alliance of citizen journalists who trawl the web to document the weapons and tactics deployed in armed conflict, including the downing of flight MH17 in Ukraine and Sarin and chlorine gas attacks in Syria. According to Human Rights and Technology Program Director Keith Hiatt, “Eliot’s expertise in vehicle and munitions identification is well known, but it’s his ability to coordinate the efforts of a globally distributed team of investigators, and synthesize findings in an accessible way, that really sets him apart.”

“We’ve entered a new era of human rights investigations and Eliot Higgins is at the forefront of that work,” said Alexa Koenig, executive director of the Human Rights Center. “We are honored to partner with Eliot and to support his groundbreaking efforts to investigate human rights abuses.”

Higgins is currently a visiting research associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. In addition, he is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative, where he co-authored major reports documenting Russia’s involvement in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine.

The Human Rights Investigations Lab at UC Berkeley will become part of Amnesty International’s “Digital Verification Corps,” along with the University of Essex and the University of Pretoria. The center will launch the lab in January 2017.

Berkeley Human Rights Q&A #7: Michele DiTomas

A prison doc’s mission to fix the system

Dr. Michele DiTomas, Chief Physician at the California Correctional Medical Facility and 1997 Human Rights Center Fellow.

As the Chief Physician at the California Correctional Medical Facility and Director of Hospice for incarcerated men, Dr. Michele DiTomas is charged with caring for some of the state’s most vulnerable people and helping to fix a broken system. When federal judge Thelton Henderson ruled in Plata v. Schwarzenegger more than a decade ago that a lack of appropriate medical care in California’s adult prisons was unconstitutional—citing “outright depravity” and egregious misconduct in the system—he ordered the federal government to enter the prison system into receivership. DiTomas was among the doctors hired to clean house. She now manages fifteen doctors who care for 2,800 inmates, at least half of whom are mentally ill or developmentally delayed. Her formal education (a Joint Medical Degree from UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco) and real-world experience have prepared her well. She was in the Peace Corps in Malawi in the early 1990s carrying out famine relief work during a massive drought, in the slums of Bangkok for her Human Rights Center Fellowship in 1997, and in poor and marginalized Bay Area communities for residency and beyond. Since 2006, she’s worked tirelessly within the state’s troubled mass incarceration system.

Note: The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the Federal Receivership. 

Q. Although you worked in Malawi and Thailand, you ultimately did your medical residency in San Francisco. Why?

A. When you’re 35 and have three kids, you realize you’re probably not going to work in a Mozambican refugee camp with Doctors Without Borders. The residency I chose was UCSF family medicine and based at SF General. You’re working with people who have serious mental illness, substance issues, socio-economic challenges, immigration issues, poverty issues. It turns out that the people who I like to take care of most are these middle-aged, intermittently incarcerated homeless men. Every day I hear a story about an experience that is very different than what I encounter in my daily life.

Q. What did Plata v. Schwarzenegger say about health-care in California’s prisons?

A. Medical care in the prisons was found to be unconstitutional. People were dying unnecessarily in their cells. They were presenting with shortness of breath, told to go back to their cells for their asthma attack, and then died of asthma. There were egregious cases. Medical care was being given by people who were not necessarily qualified to give medical care. There has been a huge change since the receiver took over. Over the last 10 years, medical care inside the system has dramatically improved.

Part of why we have such overly aggressive sentencing in our criminal justice system is because as a society we tend to put things in categories. These guys are in prison, so they must be bad. That’s not what you learn when you spend time with people and hear their stories.

Q. Where did you begin?

A. I was hired as a Chief Physician and Surgeon—half clinical and half supervisory. The combination gave me time to do clinical work, but also work on system and quality improvements. I think it would have been too frustrating to go into such a damaged system and slog through the day and see the problems but not have any time to help make the system better.

Q. Does the California Correctional Medical Center feel like a prison or a hospital? Do you ever feel unsafe?

A. Part of why we have such overly aggressive sentencing in our criminal justice system is because as a society we tend to put things in categories. These guys are in prison, so they must be bad. That’s not what you learn when you spend time with people and hear their stories. When I’m walking down the main line and all of the guys from Unit 4 at 6:30 in the morning are walking out of their unit for chow, they say, “Hey, doc” or “Hey doc, thanks for helping me.” It feels safe to me. I have felt more unsafe at SF General because there you have very mentally ill patients who aren’t getting treated and you have no officers around if something goes wrong. Unfortunately, prison has become our nation’s de facto mental health treatment system. On the inside in California people have access to treatment programs, psychiatric medications, groups. It’s when we send them back out into society that they often do not have these supports.

Q. You also oversee the state’s hospice program for incarcerated men, with 17 beds. Hospice in prison must be a bit complicated.

A. Often people are estranged from family members. They haven’t seen them in many years. Sometimes they don’t even know if anybody is alive anymore. Many times family members were the victims of the crime. Often our incredible chaplain is able to track down family members. Recently he told three daughters that their father was here in hospice and that he wanted to see them before he died so that he could make amends for all of the pain and suffering he’d caused. And they said “No, we don’t want to ever see him again.” Click. The next day they all showed up at the front gate without any clearances or anything. This man had killed his wife in an alcoholic rage. They were kids when it happened and had been terrified of this man their whole life. He was a monster to them. They come in and here’s this little old man who says, “I’m so, so sorry.” He was able to have closure and to die in peace. Even more importantly these women who are now in their 30s and 40s will be able to live the rest of their lives knowing that he asked their forgiveness and that they forgave him the best that they could.

Unfortunately, prison has become our nation’s de facto mental health treatment system.

Q. Can we let out incarcerated men who have only a short time to live?

A. There is a process of compassionate release. If a doctor determines that a patient has less than six months to live, we can petition the courts to consider the individual for release. Since one of the criteria for hospice admission is a prognosis of less than six months, we request compassionate release for all of our hospice patients. Custody then reviews the case and if the patient is thought to not be a danger to society, they will forward the case to the court or the parole board for consideration. The problem is that the process typically takes four to five months and many of our patients have only weeks to months to live. This is an area of much needed reform so that the logistics of the process do not make the goal impossible.

Q. It’s probably not great for your mental health to be in prison. Are we doing all we can for mentally ill patients?

A. That’s what surprised me most when I started working there. I didn’t understand that we incarcerate people who are floridly psychotic when they commit their crime. One of the first years I was working I was reviewing my patient’s chart and saw his psychiatry note. When he committed his crime, he had this delusion that there were huge metal plates coming down from the sky trying to crush his car. The police were chasing him, he was speeding, crashed his car and hurt people. And he was put in prison. That was a wakeup call to me. He was running from something that he truly thought was a threat and yet he ends up inside a prison. Seems like there should be an alternative for cases like this. I also didn’t realize the degree of cognitive disability that people can have and still be incarcerated. I have patients who are so challenged that they have to be reminded daily to brush their teeth, shower and eat. And with the aging prison population we are spending extraordinary amounts of money caring for demented elders who need assistance with all of their activities of daily living.

No one intended for him to die in prison and certainly no one intended for his mother to have to live with that for the rest of her life.

Q. Do you consider your work human rights work?

A. This is my biggest internal conflict. Yes, I believe access to healthcare is a human right. But it also means working within a system that, in my opinion, is an unjust system.

Q. What’s the most unjust part of that system?

A. The sentencing laws are outrageous, often with sentences vastly out of proportion to the crime. They give much too long sentences. Many of our elderly patients are absolutely not a danger to society. The risk of recidivism is very low and yet we’re keeping them inside. And that feels wrong. Another area is the overuse of administrative segregation. A man gets caught with a bag of marijuana and a cell phone—these are potential security risks because people have called hits from prison and hurt other people—but no one deserves six months in solitary because of marijuana and a cell phone.

Q. Have your patients been further harmed by solitary confinement?

A. One man I remember well was my patient for about five years. He was a paraplegic. He had been shot in the spine in his early 20s, but was really fit with a sporty wheelchair. He had a history of depression but it was controlled. After he was sent to solitary confinement because he was caught with a marijuana and a cell phone, he became profoundly depressed. He was delusional. Paranoid. He gained 40 pounds. He would come in with these paranoid ideas that I knew weren’t happening. I attempted to advocate for him several times and custody did try to expedite the process. Human Rights Watch says more than two weeks in isolation is a human rights violation. There are challenges to being part of a system that does things like that. Sometimes I feel I should leave. But then somebody thanks me for helping them get the medical care that they needed. Or I have a small success, where I feel like my actions may have done something to change the culture for the better.

 Q. Do you have an example of this?

A. We admitted a patient to hospice who had a few weeks left to live. He really wanted to speak to his daughter one last time before he died and say goodbye, but she was incarcerated as well at a woman’s prison and was in ad seg [administrative segregation, also called solitary confinement]. We worked with our Warden who got permission from the Warden at his daughter’s facility for a phone conversation. It was arranged that they would have a 15-minute conversation. Afterwards the daughter was taken to a session with her mental health provider to help her process the intense experience. Later, I got an email from a captain at the other facility thanking us for allowing him to take part in such a moving and compassionate experience. He said in 25 years as a correctional officer it was one of the most positive things he had been a part of. These sorts of experiences remind me why I continue this work.

Q. Is there any one case that really haunts you?

A. There’s one, a 35-year-old man who had been using some drugs, perhaps dealing, maybe some burglary, nothing incredibly violent. He ended up stealing his mother’s car. She was at the end of her rope and was worried she was enabling his behavior. So she called the police and he ended up getting five years, which wasn’t what she anticipated. As a child he had suffered from a rare cancer that he had survived and was thought to be cured. During his second year in prison, his cancer came back. He ended up coming to our hospice. His mother visited him all of the time and wanted nothing more than to have him come home with her. We applied for compassionate release but the cancer was aggressive and we slowly watched him go from a strong independent man to fully bed-bound. We did not think he was going to make it home and it was so hard to watch. Finally, he was granted release but custody had 14 days to let him out. I wasn’t sure he was going to make it until Monday, let alone 14 days. So Friday night at 4:55 PM we found someone to send us the official court documents and I got a promise someone would work on it over the weekend so he could leave on Monday. The most haunting part when I told him he could go on Monday was the profoundly sad look on his face. I thought he would be elated but his eyes said that he was not sure he would make it. Thankfully, he did make it until Monday and was able to go home with his mother. He died four days later. No one intended for him to die in prison and certainly no one intended for his mother to have to live with that for the rest of her life.

Q. Are you optimistic now that it seems more and more people are interested in fixing the mass incarceration system?

A. Sometimes I am optimistic and sometimes I’m not. Michael Romano is a civil rights lawyer who runs what used to be called the Three Strikes Clinic at Stanford and they advocate for people with life sentences. He played a huge role in putting together Prop. 36, which changed the [thee strikes] penalty so that the third strike had to be a serious or violent offense. And it passed overwhelmingly. I think people realized the pendulum had swung too far. Usually I don’t know my patient’s crimes. I had known this one woman for a long time, a lifer, when one day she saw me in the hall and came over excitedly and said, “I’m going home!” And I said, “What do you mean?” And she said, “My third strike was for stealing mascara!” She got life in prison for stealing mascara. And she got out. So thanks Michael Romano. There are movements to pull the pendulum back. There’s always hope.


Berkeley Human Rights Q&A #6: Julie Freccero

Scoping mission: How do we protect refugee children from sexual violence?


Julie Freccero meets with a Serbian police official in March 2016.

Julie Freccero, associate director of the Human Rights Center’s Sexual Violence Program, visited Greece, Serbia, and Germany during a research scoping mission in March to learn about the needs of refugees—particularly refugee children—and their vulnerabilities to trafficking and sexual violence. The scoping team, which also included Kim Thuy Seelinger, director of the  Sexual Violence Program, and Rich Weir, Berkeley Law JD ’16, interviewed government officials, service providers, and advocates. In Greece, they found that refugees lacked access to safe shelters and even basic medical services for sexual violence. HRC researchers will return to Greece later this year to assess the needs of unaccompanied refugee children, in hopes of improving protection and support services. Freccero shares her initial impressions of this crisis. 

Q. What did you learn about the plight of refugee children in Greece?

A. An estimated 22,000 refugee children are stranded in Greece, and around 2,000 of them are unaccompanied by an adult. Some of the unaccompanied children were separated from a parent somewhere along the journey, but many of them actually started on this route on their own. According to EKKA, which is the National Center for Social Solidarity in Greece, over 90 percent of unaccompanied children are adolescent boys between the ages of 14 and 17. Many of them are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and countries in North Africa. More recently, Syrian boys have been traveling on their own.

Q. What efforts are made to identify and protect these children?

A. It’s important to note that the refugee situation in Greece is changing on a daily basis. But when I was in Lesvos in March, it was actually a Frontex border officer and a police officer who determined if the child was under 18 at the time of registration. They didn’t have any training in age assessment and weren’t using any standard process. Children were often claiming to be over 18 so they didn’t get stuck in the child protection system in Greece. They wanted to continue on to Germany, Sweden, or other destinations.

Children were detained until the social services agency in Greece placed them in a shelter for unaccompanied minors in mainland Greece. The Greek government was calling it “protective custody,” but it was definitely detention. I went to the camp in Lesvos where children were confined to a small area with this tall barbed wire fence around it. They were not able to freely walk around the camp. NGOs were raising a lot of concerns—that girls and boys were being housed together, that these areas had no oversight or management, and that they didn’t have sufficient access to psychosocial support services.


“Unaccompanied children are worse off since the formal closure of the Balkans route. Now all the shelters are full because children are no longer leaving to cross borders. When I was there in the Spring, there was a list of over 200 unaccompanied minors waiting for shelter beds. So even though they are being identified, there’s literally nowhere to place them now.”


Q. What is the strategy for protecting refugee children?

A. Before the borders closed in April, approximately 80 percent of the kids were running away from these shelters for unaccompanied children within two or three days. They just wanted to continue on the migration path. There was a lot of debate among child protection providers about whether they should even be helping the children to register as unaccompanied. Some felt that you couldn’t just send children off on the Balkans route where they would be exposed to trafficking and other kinds of exploitation or abuse. Other providers felt that when you put them in the Greek shelter system, you separated them from their peer group—literally their only form of social support—and because they would leave anyway, this was actually putting them at risk of greater harm.

Q. What changed when the borders closed? Where are most of these children now?

A. Unaccompanied children are worse off since the formal closure of the Balkans route. Now all the shelters are full because children are no longer leaving to cross borders. When I was there in the Spring, there was a list of over 200 unaccompanied minors waiting for shelter beds. So even though they are being identified, there’s literally nowhere to place them now. They’re staying for longer periods of time in detention centers and police facilities. They’re in overcrowded camps with the general population. Many of them are on the streets, near Piraeus Port in Athens, Victoria Square and the surrounding area, and other parts of the city. Having been stranded in Greece for months, many of these children are running out of money and are increasingly vulnerable to exploitation and survival sex. And with only illegal options to continue to their migration, they’re also increasingly vulnerable to trafficking and more dangerous smuggling routes.

Q. What did you learn about risks of sexual and gender-based violence faced by refugees in Greece?

A. We heard a lot about rape and sexual assault by smugglers, by border authorities, and police officers, while people are in transit—particularly in Turkey. We heard a lot about sexual exploitation. Some people run out of money or robbed along the way and end up exchanging sex to continue to cross borders. There were a lot of concerns about young boys from Afghanistan and Pakistan, that they were being sexually exploited in some of the parks in Athens.

We also heard from service providers that there had been more reports of domestic and sexual violence in the camps once people became stranded and were staying for weeks instead of days. I spent one day in Eleonas, a refugee camp in Athens, and just during that time, we heard about four cases of domestic violence. One of them was a pregnant woman. It was a really urgent case. She wanted to be transferred to a safe shelter. They couldn’t find a place for her.

Q. Are we protecting refugees of all ages from sexual violence in the camps?

A. Sexual- and gender-based violence has been one of the most neglected aspects of this humanitarian response. The UN IASC guidelines for addressing GBV in humanitarian settings state that you should assume that gender-based violence is happening in crisis settings, regardless of the availability of data. Gender-based violence services are considered life-saving services and should be put in place at the earliest stages of humanitarian response. When I was there in March, there was very little in place for survivors who come forward. Even basic medical services for sexual assault, such as post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, weren’t available in most of the camp areas.

After a year of virtually no action, there is finally acknowledgement that SGBV is happening, and that prevention and response measures must be put in place. We’ve learned about recent progress in this area—there are now gender-based violence sub-working groups in every region, more NGOs planning GBV-related activities, and dialogue about how to respond is taking place. Hopefully soon this will be soon be accompanied by actual services.

Q. Is Greece up to this challenge?

The emergency has really shed light on these huge gaps in Greece’s own public systems. Service providers talked a lot about how services were cut back in the economic crisis. There are more than 50,000 refugees still stranded in Greece. So when we talk about sustainability and linking refugees to mainstream health and social services, this is a huge challenge. The systems were already strained before the refugee crisis. We met with some Greek NGOs that are doing some amazing work with unaccompanied and separated refugee youth—providing shelter, family reunification, and integration services—but the need is huge and capacity is limited.

Since Greece has transitioned from a transit country to a protracted refugee situation, and as new camps continue to be established, it’s critical to make sure GBV prevention and protection measures are part of the planning.

Human Rights Q&A #5: Noah Novogrodsky

Theory to the practice and practice to the theory

NoahNoah Novogrodsky Novogrodsky’s work in human rights is sprawling—from championing marriage equality to challenging “seafood slavery” to defending the health of Ugandan mothers to analyzing the Islamic State. What binds it all together is a commitment to fusing legal theory and academic scholarship with an unwavering eye on the prize: the practical impact on human rights. He is the co-director of the Center for International Human Rights Law & Advocacy and a professor of law at the University of Wyoming. He was also the founding director of the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. The father of two, Novogrodsky is a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center this year while his wife, also a University of Wyoming professor, conducts research in her field of cultural history.

 Q. What sparked your career in human rights?

A. I read about the work that Harold Koh was doing at Yale Law School on behalf of Haitian refugees trying to get to the United States who were intercepted and taken to Guantánamo Bay. You don’t need a lot of reasons to go to Yale for law school, but I had an extra one in that I was studying international relations in graduate school at Cambridge but there was a human face to the work that folks were doing at Yale. When I went into academia, I was influenced by both the practice and scholarship of Yale Law School. I’ve tried to keep my foot in both worlds ever since.

Q. What does “practice and scholarship” mean to you?

A. I think there is a problem with academics in general when they become too far removed from real-world issues. If they are only operating at the theoretical level, it’s hard to test their ideas and see if they are applicable as problem-solving or framing devices. The practitioners are in the trenches every day and sometimes they don’t get to think beyond their immediate circumstances and more holistically about law and society and what it means to be an advocate for social justice. I think that the best practitioners draw from interesting ideas, many of them theoretical concepts, and the best scholarship, research, and writing is informed by real world events and practice. I’ve tried to bring theory to the practice and practice to the theory.

“There are some times when it is disappointing, but I draw a distinction between disappointment and discouragement.”


Q. Is academic scholarship compromised when it is influenced by advocates?

A. Some academics are pretty elitist and they don’t want to be sullied by practitioners so they turn out constitutional tomes that have very little applicability in practice. I believe the sweet spot for an academic is to be able to step outside of the trenches occasionally and pay attention to interesting scholarly developments and bring some of those ideas and influences to your work as a practitioner.

Q. Is that what we do here at Berkeley?

A. One of the things I like about the Human Rights Center at Berkeley is that the investigative reports that come out of this office have application for both academic scholarship and real-world human rights advocacy. It starts with excellent research and analysis and writing in clear unexaggerated terms. Human Rights Center reports are a reflection of real problems and how people are negotiating the resolution of those problems, as opposed to an aspirational document about a vague duty that may crystallize in the future but doesn’t exist right now. I think studies of victim participation at the International Criminal Court or sexual violence experienced by migrants have practical and institutional implications for how we do this work better or more sensitively or in ways that are for victims or in support of human rights and the rule of law. It’s my go-to resource for academic writing on similar topics. I’m concerned about academics who fall in love with an idea and don’t test it against a reality.

Q. We tend to think of the United States as a great leader on the marriage equality front, but it’s not necessarily so.

A. The United States is both a leader and a laggard, because some states were out front and others resisted. Some of our state supreme courts came up with loony ideas about marriage. The Indiana Supreme Court, for example, ruled that marriage exists to save the children of unwed teenagers from bastard status. They were down to one, decidedly unromantic, reason for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples: to give a status incentive, usually to young people who accidentally get pregnant, to rescue them and their unborn children from stigma and discrimination.

Q. What’s the gist of the amicus brief on marriage equality that you drafted and filed in the U.S. Supreme Court? 

A. The struggle for marriage equality has played out in human rights terms and has occurred with dizzying speed. In a dozen years we went from one or two states experimenting to 50-state marriage equality. That is in a sense a whole generational or multigenerational civil rights project playing out in a 12-month period. The Obergefell case asked whether same sex marriage should be a legal possibility in all 50 states. The claim we made in the brief was that the United States does not exist in isolation and that we can learn from developments in other constitutional democracies and how we determine constitutional rights and principles influences what happens in other countries. We are not an island. The lead author [of the amicus brief] was [Yale’s] Harold Koh. The argument that the six professor amici made in this case was that principles of dignity and equality in our Constitution have been interpreted by the Supreme Courts of other nations to allow marriage equality. About twenty countries globally now allow same-sex marriage. The trend is undeniable. From Canada to Argentina, they have all embraced marriage equality for reasons of the dignity of the participants and the notion that it is unseemly for the state to create separate and unequal forms of legal partnership. We made the argument that in this circumstance, the U.S. could learn from other countries that have, in turn, learned from us on issues of dignity, equality, and liberty.

Q. You are working on another landmark case halfway around the world, to improve maternal health in Uganda.

A. I’m involved in an interesting case in partnership with a Ugandan NGO—a challenge under the Ugandan Constitution to provide safe Cesarean sections and other emergency obstetrics to pregnant women. Uganda has an appallingly high mortality rate. It also has a constitution that contains protections for women and children. The claim in that case is that right to life and right to health mean that women should be able to give birth in as safe an environment as possible. In Uganda, poor women sometimes have a hard time getting to hospitals and clinics to deliver and women who need C-sections often don’t get them because they don’t get the medicine or procedure to deliver babies safely. Somewhere on the order of sixteen women a day on average die in childbirth in Uganda. That’s almost fifty times the death rate of the United States and other developed countries and seven times that of neighboring Rwanda, which has a similar GDP.

I was asked to join the case after a Ugandan Court issued an adverse ruling based on a misreading of the U.S. law, specifically the political question doctrine.  Our role was to help our allies appeal that issue to the Ugandan Supreme Court.  We helped to contribute briefing material for the local lawyers who argued the case and helped them to construct an argument about the role of the judiciary, based largely on US law.

My 13-year old daughter, Ruby, said I had done good work on the Uganda case and that mattered to me. David is 9. He’s concerned about Star Wars and fighting injustice on that level.


Q. How is this case about North-South collaboration?

A. There are many lessons in this case. We should think hard about the right times for us to share our experience with foreign advocates and human rights activists. It’s very rarely appropriate for us to say, ‘that’s how we do things in the US and you should do it here.’ We don’t want to be neocolonialists and we don’t want to be telling the rest of the world how to behave. But in a case that interprets US law, we have a lot to say. The work in Uganda pairs nicely with the same sex marriage case because effective human rights advocacy needs to be a two-way street. We need to be sharing the best of what happens here with partners internationally and we need to be importing positive developments internationally.

Q. You’re an expert on failed states and what constitutes a state. Why does it matter?

A. I’m writing an article that asks whether ISIS is a state. The Montevideo Convention is the international building block for ‘what is a state’ and it has only four criteria: a permanent population, a government, a territory, and the ability to enter into negotiations with other states. The state doesn’t need to be representative or democratic or secular or even constitutive of the hopes and aspirations of people in the unit. It’s an authority on a piece of territory that can negotiate with its neighbors and defines where one state starts and another one begins. It could be a capitalist state. A monarchy. A radical Communist state. It’s still a state if it meets the minimum criteria.

The Islamic State is challenging some of our core notions of what it means to be a state. Scholars have long recognized that the Montevideo Convention is an incomplete analysis of what constitutes a real country, but the Islamic State is calling itself a state. Unlike Boko Haram or al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations that use violence to further their aims, the Islamic State has territory under its control. It has imposed an austere and authoritarian government structure. It has engaged in horrific human rights abuses of the population it dominates. But that’s no different than other states.

 Q. Who decides if a state is a state?

A. Ultimately, the State Department here and foreign ministries of other states make determinations about when they will recognize other countries and when they won’t. Usually when there are strong political or economic interests that equation looks different than instances when there aren’t. Very few Americans have a stake in the question of whether East Timor becomes a sovereign nation and not part of Indonesia. But there are a lot of Americans who care deeply on both sides of the issue about whether Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state. Part of my agenda here is to help distinguish between the Kurds and the Palestinians, who clearly meet international legal standards for statehood, and the Islamic State, which offends our sensibilities with its horrific abuses. We need a reason for denying statehood. One of the problems is that existing states commit atrocities all of the time. It’s a little rich to tell a would-be state that it cannot be a state. I think part of getting a seat at the table is signing on to international conventions and making commitments and promising to respect borders and boundaries. And with statehood comes immunity from prosecution. Before we talk about the Islamic State becoming a state, it’s reasonable that we demand that it refrain from massacring groups or throwing gay men off of buildings or committing other barbaric acts.

Q. We have learned, in recent months, that shrimp, tuna, and other fish we buy at our local stores may have been caught by men who are literally enslaved on fishing boats. How can this be and what are we doing about it?

A.The Human Rights Clinic in Wyoming has been involved in a project to study possible remedies to this odious practice of seafood slavery. There’s a lot of expertise at Berkeley on the same issue. So some of this is a question of forced labor and of other forms of modern slavery and [Human Rights Center Faculty Director] Eric Stover and others at Berkeley have written extensively of the rights abuses and implications of global and domestic forced labor. Seafood slavery is a relevant and understandable problem: individuals are being duped or coerced to work, not paid for their labor, and sometimes locked in with the fish. The Guardian and others have exposed the abuses. There are companies like Costco and Purina that don’t actively want to abet human rights violations but are buying cost-competitive goods for sale here from suppliers that have a lot of blood on their hands. Most businesses, certainly those with a brand that can be punished by consumers in the marketplace, don’t want to be associated with violations. We need to move to a whole other level of concerted advocacy and coordinated actions and that might take the form of legal regulations in deveoped countries or cracking down on the worst abusers at the source. It might take the form of consumer boycotts or changes in behavior. There are a lot of ways of addressing and trying to correct for a problem once we know it exists.

Q. Have you seen any changes since you started to work on this issue?

A. I think there is a concern among the big players in the seafood industry and they are trying to certify that they aren’t sourcing their fish from certain places. But corporate social responsibility is notoriously voluntary. Some consumers are starting to wonder where their seafood comes from and whether getting seafood at affordable prices is worth it if we know what goes into production….I think we’re at a pretty early stage of exposing the violations.

Q. Do you talk to your young children about your work?

A. My 13-year old daughter, Ruby, said I had done good work on the Uganda case and that mattered to me. David is 9. He’s concerned about Star Wars and fighting injustice on that level.

Q. Do you ever get overwhelmed with the urgency and amount of work there is to do for human rights and feel your work is just a drop in the bucket?

A. Like Bob Bernstein, the founder of Human Rights Watch, I think I’m a happy warrior. You’ve got to do something that gives you energy. One of the reasons I left a corporate law firm for a less lucrative career is that I don’t find myself watching the clock. I feel inspired to work on a range of issues. I feel privileged. There are some times when it is disappointing, but I draw a distinction between disappointment and discouragement. If you have a privileged tenured position like I do, you get wide latitude to make all sorts of contributions. I have great sympathy for people who work in the trenches on issues that are hard to confront every day. The psychologists working in war zones or the rape counselors in the eastern Congo or the journalists covering the Yazidi survivors of ISIS assaults. I think that can be so dispiriting that it’s hard to go to work the next day. I remember how fortunate I am when I go back to my academic office, and I have students who are lined up and eager to join me in this work.

Berkeley Human Rights Q&A #3: Hernán Reyes

Watching the world’s prisons

Hernan speaking on prison panelDr. Hernán Reyes thought he was signing up for a brief stint with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) after finishing his medical studies and specialization as an Ob/Gyn.  The job turned into a passion and a three-decade career, taking him to hundreds of prisons worldwide to document and bear witness to torture and other abuses. While most people are aware of the Red Cross—especially the country-specific American Red Cross, French Red Cross or Turkish Red Crescent—the ICRC itself is less known. The organization was launched in 1863 with the first Geneva Convention to ensure that the battlefield wounded weren’t left to suffer and die. Later, the ICRC helped implement wartime protocols to protect prisoners of war. The son of a United Nations translator, Reyes was born in Chile and raised in New York and Geneva. Reyes is retired from the ICRC now, living with his wife in Geneva, and serving as a Human Rights Center Senior Fellow. His grown children are traveling (and positively impacting) the world. He recently visited UC Berkeley to speak on a panel about prison conditions, solitary confinement, and hunger strikes.

Q. Your career path in medicine shifted pretty radically, from obstetrics to prisons. How did that happen?

A. I knocked on the ICRC’s door, thinking they might need a gynecologist. They said no, we need surgeons or midwives, not a gynecologist. But would you be interested in looking into prisons and prison medicine?…The last delivery I did was my youngest daughter who is now 24! All in all, I’ve spent 28 years working for the International Committee of the Red Cross, visiting hundreds of prisons in more than 40 countries, from Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe and practically everything in the middle, including Guantánamo and Maze prison in the UK—the worst and the best, and the most gruesome prisons you can imagine.

Continue reading “Berkeley Human Rights Q&A #3: Hernán Reyes”

Human Rights Photo, Day 2: Thomas Morley

Rose Lakue. 65 years of age and married with 5 children. In 2002 her eldest son was abducted by the LRA when they attacked her home. During the attack her husband was killed and everything was taken and her home was burned.The hands of Rose Lakue. 65 years of age and married with 5 children.In 2002 her eldest son was abducted by the LRA when they attacked her home. During the attack her husband was killed and everything was taken and her home was burned.

Rose Lakue, Uganda, 2005
Thomas Morley

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), led by Joseph Kony, ravaged northern Uganda from 1986 through 2009. The LRA abducted children to be soldiers and sex slaves, massacred villagers, and displaced more than 1.7 million people.

The LRA killed 65-year-old Rose Lakue’s husband, abducted her eldest son, and burned down her home.

Photographer Thomas Morley and HRC’s Eric Stover traveled to the Amida camp for the internally displaced and other camps in northern Uganda to document the violence. They interviewed and photographed survivors like Rose who were willing to tell their stories.

Writes Thomas Morley:
“Outside the Amida camp, under a stand of trees, I set up a wooden chair and sent a messenger inside to see if anyone was interested in having their photo taken. Over the next two days, to my utter surprise, dozens of women appeared in their best clothes, wearing what little jewelry they possessed. Younger women helped older women to sit under the trees, waiting, in turn, for me to take their pictures. I was awestruck and humbled by their quiet dignity and courage and by their determination not to be forgotten.”


In celebration of our 20th birthday, the Human Rights Center will send you a photo a day for 10 days. The photos come from the 10 world-class photographers who have generously shared their work with the center as part of the Envisioning Human Rights exhibit curated by Pamela Blotner at Berkeley Law this fall. Each photo touches on the center’s work with people who have suffered injustice and demonstrated great resilience. To learn more about the photographs and the online auction to benefit HRC’s work, visit envisioninghumanrights.com
or paddle8.com/auctions/hrc.


Sex & Ed: The keys to unlocking a new future for girls

How asking for underwear and menstrual pads in northern Uganda breaks new ground 

Students at the Pader Girls Academy in northern Uganda launched a letter-writing campaign to ask for menstrual pads and are also sewing their own reusable pads.

Today we celebrate the International Day of the Girl Child, a date set aside each October to bring attention to the needs and rights of girls around the world and to encourage activities that will help girls to realize their power and achieve their potential. Here is why the Day of the Girl matters and why the weight of the #dayofthegirl movement can’t be distilled to a tweet.

In May, I packed my bags for east Africa to fulfill a summer internship requirement for my Masters of Public Health degree. Awarded a University of California Human Rights Fellowship from the Human Rights Center at Berkeley Law, I would spend three months at Pader Girls Academy (PGA), a boarding school in rural northern Uganda. I aimed to create the school’s first-ever sexual and reproductive health curriculum.

I quickly learned to back up a few steps.

Uganda tells us a lot about the experience of the “girl child.” Seventy percent of Ugandans are 25 years old or younger and 25 percent of Ugandan girls aged 15–19 are pregnant or already have a child. Discrimination against women in Uganda is a result of rules and practices that explicitly exclude women, such as the traditional policy that requires schoolgirls to terminate their education for two years if they become pregnant. Though policy has been overturned, many institutions continue to adhere to the original rule. To further highlight the lack of agency that Ugandan girls experience, the most recent Demographic Health Survey reported that 77 percent of girls ages 15-19 are not allowed to participate in household decision-making.

Girls across the developing world share these complex barriers to health, education, and empowerment. However, the girls of northern Uganda face an additional challenge.

The country continues to suffer the aftermath of a 25-year rebel war, which was characterized by infamously brutal “recruitment” tactics. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)—the rebel group at the heart of the violence—abducted an estimated 60,000–80,000 people throughout the course of the conflict, manipulating young boys to fight and forcing young girls to act as “brides” to high commanders.

As the conflict drew to a close, many abductees escaped or were released. But coming home was not always celebratory or even possible.

Adolescent girls who came out of the LRA often brought with them their children who were born in captivity and fathered by rebel commanders. These young women faced enormous barriers to acceptance from their families and communities and challenges reintegrating in society. Pader Girls Academy (PGA) was founded for them.

PGA is the only school in the region that allows young mothers to keep their babies with them as they continue their studies. The school even provides free childcare. PGA has opened its arms to child mothers and other vulnerable young women beyond the original former-abductee population.

During my time in Pader, I surveyed these students, interviewed their teachers and conducted focus groups to better understand their needs and desires for sexual and reproductive health. My students did want information, but they also wanted something much more basic: underwear, soap, and menstrual pads.

I realized that if I didn’t own underwear, I probably wouldn’t be thinking about my long-term family planning strategy either.

In the United States, the average woman spends $150 each year on menstrual hygiene products. Many families in rural Uganda earn less than $150 in an entire year.

According to some studies, 66 percent of girls know nothing about menstruation until they start their menses. Imagine how traumatic this could be. Most girls at PGA use rags or old t-shirts to stuff in their underwear during their period. Most can’t afford disposable pads and many cannot even afford underwear. If blood soaks through their clothing, they may skip classes to avoid the embarrassment. According to a UNICEF study conducted in Uganda, 61 percent of girls reported missing school due to their monthly period.

Some of my students told me that girls’ inability to afford pads was a key reason that so many became pregnant. What? The causal pathway was not immediately clear to me.

The students explained that when a girl cannot afford pads (or clothing, transportation, school fees, etc.), an older man may offer to pay for those things and later expect sex. This exploitation coupled with the extreme lack of family-planning knowledge contributes to Uganda’s high school drop-out and teen pregnancy rates.

After listening to these needs and concerns, I organized an advocacy workshop. The head girl of the school, Grace, selected a few girls from each grade who were considered the “best writers.” I worked with them to identify and articulate their needs and to communicate those needs to key decision-makers.

The girls wrote letters to companies such as Hanes and Kotex on behalf of the school. They wrote about their dreams and their challenges, describing how donations of basic hygiene resources would have a positive impact on the trajectory of their studies.

The response was overwhelming. The girls’ letters sparked a conversation between Lunapads, a Canadian company that sells reusable menstrual pads, and me and ultimately led their Ugandan partner company, Afripads, to donate “hygiene kits,” to every student at Pader Girls Academy. Each kit contains several pairs of underwear, a set of reusable pads, and a bar of soap.

The students were thrilled. At our end-of-term assembly, we recognized the girls who wrote the letters and applauded them for their initiative and their service to the school. It was a powerful moment.

Building on this momentum of self-sufficiency, the tailoring instructor of PGA and I identified a simple pattern and local materials to sew reusable pads ourselves. We taught the vocational students how to sew their own pads and encouraged them to make extras to sell in their home villages over the term break.

PGA is a community of girls who have been stripped of their power. Poverty happens to them, sex happens to them, pregnancy happens to them. To see these strong young women reclaiming their voices, taking initiative, and finding a sense of control over even one aspect of their lives is thrilling—especially when that one seemingly small thing—menstruation— can have such a ripple effect on other areas of their lives and on the rest of their lives.

On this International Day of the Girl Child, we must recognize that educating girls is a priority that goes hand-in-hand with ensuring that their basic needs are met—and working with them as they regain their voices to ask for what they need.

Maggie Crosby is a student in the School of Public Health at UC Berkeley and a 2014 Human Rights Fellow from the UC Berkeley School of Law. 

Human Rights Center convenes global workshop on war crimes investigations

The first Salzburg Workshop on Improving War Crimes Investigations is bringing together technology innovators, human rights investigators, International Criminal Court prosecutors, legal scholars, and others this week to examine and debate the most effective use of cyber-technology in documenting and investigating atrocities.

Held at the Schloss Leopoldskron in Salzburg, Austria—a castle once occupied by the Nazis and now used for global meetings—the workshop promises to yield new ideas for  how people on the ground, who are closest to conflict, may document genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in court-admissible ways. A public report that outlines conclusions and protocols will be made available in the coming months.

“Documentary evidence can be minutes from meetings, telephone intercepts, written orders, or information gleaned from cellular devices,” explained Professor Eric Stover, faculty director of the Human Rights Center. “The aim is triangulate such evidence with testimonial and physical evidenced obtained at the crime scene.”

The workshop, organized by the Human Rights Center in partnership with the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), is funded by Humanity United, the Open Society Justice Initiative, the Oak Foundation, and Sigrid Rausing Trust. It is the first of three Salzburg Workshops to focus on technology and improving war crimes investigations.

Professor Eric Stover, faculty director of the Human Rights Center, delivers opening remarks at the first Salzburg Workshop on Improving War Crimes Investigations. Also pictured are Dr. Camille Crittenden, deputy director of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and Professor Laurel Fletcher, director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at UC Berkeley.