It's essential to distinguish between political responsibility and direct criminal responsibility. To say that Henry Kissinger supported Pinochet, helped him get into power and stay there while atrocities were going on is one thing. That is not necessarily a crime under international law. We do have to examine political responsibility — it's not enough to go after Pinochet without also examining the U.S. role in Chile, or to go after Habre without also studying the political role played by France and the U.S.. But direct criminal responsibility under international law must be proven. If it is, then the individuals in question should be called to account.

As we look over the list, there are numerous instances where tyrants have been granted asylum or safe passage out of their own country. Sometimes it's pure cynicism, indifference, and realpolitik, and sometimes it's done to stop the bleeding. Mengistu originally went to Zimbabwe because Jimmy Carter arranged it, to keep him from doing further harm. But, by and large, history shows that these guys leave when their time is up, when their support at home is evaporating. These individuals who amass great power, history shows us they fall.

In terms of "gettability," I would say that, of those on the list, Stroessner has the most to worry about. In May 1999, Human Rights Watch started talking to groups in Brazil, notably with Marcos Bilim, head of the Human Rights Committee in the National Assembly. That parliamentary Committee drafted a request for Brazil to prosecute Stroessner. There hasn't yet been a response [from the courts], but the idea has been articulated, the seed has been sown.

We don't exclude the possibility of prosecuting lower-ranking criminals against humanity. Heads of state are not the sole perpetrators of these atrocities, which have no statute of limitations. If we were to prosecute a police captain, for example, that would send a message to a whole class of individuals. In fact, Human Rights Watch considered prosecuting a Turkish police officer who periodically travels to Germany to visit his cousin. He could be arrested there. But, after consulting with human rights professionals in Turkey, we realized that the action would backfire. It would provoke a huge wave of Turkish nationalism, and very likely a backlash against Turks in Germany. So we decided not to pursue that case.

While prosecutions must not be politically motivated, we feel it's important to bring cases that create political consensus, cases where the victims, and the citizens of the country where the crimes were committed, are strongly behind the action. That is why Human Rights Watch was so interested in the Habre case: it was the first transnational human rights prosecution in Africa, the first south-south case, if you will. It is important to break the paradigm of northern colonial powers judging the south. Moreover, this case was brought by victims, who traveled to Senegal — where Habre has lived since 1990 — in order to testify.

It was devastating when in July 2000 Senegalese courts dropped the charges against Habre, in a move that was clearly politically engineered. Habre is once again secure in his country of exile. Still, even when prosecutions fail to culminate in convictions, they nonetheless have an important effect. To quote Louise Arbour, 'it makes the world a smaller place for these people.' They cannot move about freely. Habre will not be leaving Senegal any time soon. The effort to prosecute him is tremendously important, because all of the previous precedents have been in Europe.

In contemplating the relative merits of criminal vs. civil prosecutions, civil cases can only be brought in the U.S., if I'm not mistaken. Criminal cases require the daunting mechanism of the state, and so can be harder to get off the ground. The Pinochet and Habre criminal prosecutions were exceptions, in that they were brought originally by victims [not governments].

Criminal prosecutions are more punitive. It's justice. If we don't prosecute, impunity creates contempt for the law. Unless we prosecute, the law will never enter the calculus of repression. Prosecuting is not only about the past. It's about the future. It's saying, 'Today's it's Pinochet, tomorrow it could be you.'

Reed Brody is the Director of Global Advocacy, Human Rights Watch, New York.

Next >>