International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania

Greetings from Arusha, Tanzania, where I am interning at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

For my first blog, I am posting a summary I have written to provide a little background information on the history of Rwanda, the buildup to the genocide, and the creation and work of the ICTR.

Historical Context of the 1994 Violence in Rwanda

.

In order to understand the violence of 1994, during which about 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were systematically massacred in less than 100 days, it is essential to understand the historical buildup to this violence and the labyrinth of social, political and economic forces that shaped Rwanda’s journey from colonization to independence, from one form of autocratic rule to another. Especially key is the racialization of Rwandan society under colonial rule, and its extension after independence in the 1st and 2nd Republics, contributing to waves of ethnic tension and violence starting in 1959 and culminating in 1994.

.

When Europeans first came upon pre-colonial society in Rwanda, they observed its composure primarily of two different groups, the same two which compose its society today: the majority Hutu, and the Tutsi. Society was organized by a divine kingship traditionally dominated by Tutsi, yet several Hutu principalities remained. Traditionally, there was a great degree of fluidity between the two groups, who share the same land, culture and language. The groups have historically been in most regards similar, although not necessarily equal, and one could move between these categories through marriage or acquisition of wealth.

.

German colonization in Rwanda officially began in 1899. The 1919 League of Nations mandate made the transfer of power to Belgian colonial rule effective. As had the Germans, the Belgians preferred the Tutsi, who were regarded to have more European features than the Hutu. With their support, the Tutsi were able to enhance their control over the population, and rework the social and economic systems in their favor. The consolidation of such a system of ethnic division was allowed for through the colonizers’ “ideological construction of Rwanda’s past, and … present” based on a racist ideology that legitimized the Tutsi superiority over the Hutu as natural, scientific and traditional.[1] This ideology lies at the core of the racialization of Rwanda and of the violence that has plagued the country in intervals since 1959.

.

Social and economic changes came in the wake of World War II, and the Tutsi elite began to push for liberalizing reforms, contesting the colonial order in a growing bid for independence. This led to a shift in favor during the last years of colonial rule, and the Church, which had been dominated by Tutsi, as well as the Belgians began to foster a “Hutu counter-elite” which gradually came into formation protesting their position of subordination. The creation of political parties in the late 1950s contributed to such racial tensions, culminating in the looting and violence of November 1959. This incident proved Belgium’s alliance had shifted to the Hutu, and prompted a move towards self-rule in Rwanda.
.

Communal elections were set in the summer of 1960 and the Hutu won a landslide victory; “under the banner of ‘democratic majority rule’ on one side and ‘immediate independence’ on the other, it was a fight between two competing elites, the newly developed Hutu counter-elite produced by the church and the older neo-traditionalist Tutsi elite which the colonial authorities had promoted since the 1920s.”[2] As Tutsi chiefs were replaced with Hutu, around 130,000 Tutsi fled the country to cross into neighboring states in the early 1960s. The so called “revolution,” closely administered by the Belgians, could really be seen more as a power trade-off from the Tutsi to the Hutu, who picked up the reigns of oppression over the Tutsi much as had been done to them before. The monarchy was soon abolished. After Gregoire Kayibanda’s “legal coup” in January 28, 1961, the Belgians granted formal independence to the Republic of Rwanda in July of that year, solidifying the 1959 revolution and the formation of the 1st Republic. An ethnic quota policy was kept in all institutions, including schools, universities, the civil service, and private business, to ensure that the Tutsi, who represented only 9%, of the population, would not represent more than that percentage in any institution.

.

Attacks on Rwanda from exiled Tutsi groups continued, culminating in the invasion of Bugesera from Burundi in December 1963, which was quickly crushed but contributed to a massive wave of repression and slaughter of Tutsi. By January 1964, 10,000 were killed and the remaining Tutsi politicians in the country were put to death. A decade later, unrest among the elite, and the killings of Hutu by the Tutsi government in Burundi scared the government, which responded by cracking down in late 1972 and early 1973 on enforcement of the ethnic quota policy in all institutions by establishing vigilante committees which often stood to gain from pushing Tutsi out of jobs.

.

New waves of ethnic tension, Tutsi emigration, peasant unrest, and elite frustration over the country’s immobility and isolation, cleared the way for Major-General Juvenal Habyarimana on July 5, 1973 to take power in a bloodless coup marking the start of the 2nd Republic, which would be marked by single-party oppressive authoritarian rule and the continued equation of democracy with demographically justified power. Eventually, shrinking resources due to the fall of coffee prices and the collapse of tin mining in the late 1980s led to increased competition among the elite for political power to enable access to foreign aid funding, and political clan rivalries ensued. Meanwhile, unrest among the heavily taxed and worked peasants was generated by the deep 1989 budget cut that took away from social services. With the rising population and shrinking food supply, the peasant class grew more and more dissatisfied with the situation of land distribution in the country, which was one of the most population dense in the world.

.

By the time of Habyarimana’s announcement of support for a multi-party system in 1990, prompting the mobilization of various groups, the Rwandan scene of politics had plunged into calamity. The Tutsi Rwandese refugees in Uganda who had formed the Rwandese Alliance for National Unity, later to be replaced by the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) in exile, a politically militant group aimed at securing their return, took advantage of the apparently fragile political context and revved up their plans to invade. By October 1990 they made their strike, marking the start of the civil war between the RPF and the Rwandan Government Forcers (FAR).
.

Peace negotiations arranged by regional and international forces resulted in the Arusha Accords signed in August 1993. The agreement set out to establish the rule of law through a power-sharing pact that would allow for repatriation of refugees and integration of the armed forces. These conditions, however, were regarded as threatening to the ruling regime, which feared its power was slipping away. The accords were not implemented and the situation did not improve in Rwanda, in part due to elements on both sides of the conflict desirous to bypass power-sharing.

.

When President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down on its return to Kigali from discussions about the accords in Burundi on April 6, 1994, forces behind the genocide were unleashed. The assassination of the President was immediately followed by the murder of several moderate targets within the ruling bloc and of the political opposition, and the massacre of Tutsi and moderate Hutu civilians by elements of armed forces and interahamwe militias. The mass killing, rape, and violence were the product of a planned attempt by Hutus in the political and military establishment to eliminate their “opponents” entirely. Within two days, the entire government had been replaced with Hutu extremists. The RPF re-launched its military campaign under the direction of Major General Paul Kagame to end the killing of Tutsi and to take over the capital. The RPF ultimately succeeded in taking over Kigali roughly two months later, on July 4, 1994, thereafter establishing the Government of National Unity on July 19, 1994.
.

In only three months, between 500,000 to one million victims were claimed, mostly Tutsi- possibly as many as three quarters of the entire Tutsi population- but also some moderate Hutu. In order to combat the Hutu forces that continued their attacks into Rwanda over the next years led by the some of the hundreds of thousands of Hutu, militias, and FAR soldiers which fled to Zaire (now the DRC) after the RPF capture of Kigali, the RPF intervened in Zaire on two separate occasions. These interventions have contributed to fighting throughout the region of the Great Lakes. This fighting occurred as attempts were made at re-education and reintegration of combatants, establishment of truth and justice through local, national, and international avenues, and reconstruction of a war torn country, economy, politics, and society.
.

International Reaction to the Rwandan Genocide and Legal Classification of the Crimes Committed
.

The slaughter of roughly 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu by militias, parts of the army, and the local population between April 6 and mid-July, 1994 was met with a lethargic reaction by the international community, which wrangled over the application of the term “genocide” while hundreds were brutalized, raped, and murdered each day. The UN Secretary General publicly made the distinction between civil war and the “massacre of civilians” on April 29, 1994, and not until June 8 did the UN Security Council issue a resolution acknowledging “acts of genocide,” although not necessarily “genocide,” in Rwanda. By June 28, 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur on Rwanda presented his report on the situation, and, drawing on Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNGC), he claimed that such conditions were met so as to constitute genocide. The application of the UNGC to the situation in Rwanda was done with much delay, and it proved to be a complex and controversial process.
.

While the violence in Rwanda was in part the product of a civil war, and of two competing groups of elites’ refusal to give away or share power in any type of agreement, the political application of the term genocide, as opposed to civil war, insurgency, or revolution, has been consistently made by the New National Unity Government led by the RPF, with this recognition resounding around the world led by the West.
.

The intentional, planned, and widespread killing of civilians in Rwanda during a period of armed conflict may be classified as war crimes, as defined under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 37 I.L.M. 999 (1998), and Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 for the Protection of War Victims and Additional Protocol II thereto of June 8, 1977. The systematic and widespread rape, torture, murder, and persecution of the Tutsi in particular as a group, on political and ethnic grounds, as part of a systematic and planned attack on civilian populations also demands the classification of crimes against humanity. While the violence perpetuated by the RAF was of course far greater in scale and intent, the violence perpetuated by the RPF may also classify as crimes against humanity.

.

The importance of the label genocide is that it goes beyond the targeting of a particular group which constitutes a crime against humanity, to cover such targeting with the intent to exterminate such group. The UNGC was adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, making genocide a crime under international law. According to Article II of the Convention,
"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The convention declares that anyone who commits, conspires to or attempts to commit, incites others to commit, or is complicit in genocide shall be punished, “whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals,” in either a State tribunal in the place the acts where committed or in an international penal tribunal. Both Rwanda’s national legislation regarding genocide and the ICTR use the UNGC’s definition. Case law from the ICTR has since established that rape may be an act of genocide when it is committed with intent to destroy one of the protected groups stated in Article II.
.

The ICTR, in its decision of its first trial involving the prosecution of Jean Paul Akayesu, former mayor of Taba commune and the first person ever to be convicted of, among other crimes, rape as genocide, took the opinion that the violence in Rwanda indeed went beyond that of a civil war, to constitute not only war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also genocide on behalf of the RAF forces and its militias. The ICTR decision stated that “there is no doubt that considering their undeniable scale, their systematic nature and their atrociousness, the massacres were aimed at exterminating the group that was targeted.” In other words, the 1994 massacres did not “occur solely within the context of the conflict between the RAF and the RPF” but rather that “the genocide did indeed take place against the Tutsi group, alongside the conflict.”[3]
.

Prosecution of the Rwandan Genocide through Criminal Law

.

The prosecution of the Rwandan genocide has allowed for international courses of justice to be run, while incorporating efforts to achieve justice on a national level, in both traditional and inventive ways.
.

On the international level, the UN Security Council established the ICTR by Resolution 955 of November 8, 1994, acting under UN Charter Chapter VII. The ICTR was established for the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda, or by Rwandans in the region, between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. It is important to note that serious violations of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity committed both by the RAF and by the RPF, as well as the crime of genocide committed by RAF’s forces, are justiciable under the ICTR.

.

The stated aim of the ICTR is to aid national reconciliation and ensure the rule of law, making sure such violations are stopped and redressed, thereby contributing to peace in the region. The ICTR is the second ad hoc tribunal in the world, and has since been responsible for the first genocide-related convictions ever made in an international court. Furthermore, the ICTR has played a key role in the development of international criminal justice, and has contributed to the groundwork for the development of the International Criminal Court.

.

In addition to the cases prosecuted by the ICTR, genocide-related cases are also prosecuted at a national level in Rwanda through both the traditional court system as well as through a new gacaca system. The gacaca system is based on the Rwandan tradition of community conflict resolution. It was developed to address the genocide on a massive scale beyond the country’s traditional justice system, which has been hindered by its very limited resources and overwhelmed by the massive population of suspected killers and prisoners, which at one point constituted over half of the country’s adult male population. The most serious offenders, as determined by Rwandan law, are either tried in the ICTR or the traditional national court system. The lower-level offenders are tried through the gacaca system, which aims to abolish the culture of impunity and speed up the process reconciliation through participative justice incorporating local populations in the judgment of participants of the 1994 violence.
.

Importance of the ICTR and Establishment of International Criminal Justice and Legal Accountability in the Wake of the Rwandan Genocide
.

The naming of the crime of genocide in the aftermath of the 1994 violence in Rwanda and the subsequent prosecution of individuals in criminal trials has re-created the past in a sense, and has given the international community a chance to establish and enforce the boundaries of international law. While there is both the risk that criminal trials may lessen combatants’ or leaders’ willingness to concede power out of fear that amnesties are unreliable, or that in some cases efforts to achieve justice may exacerbate tensions within a fragile political situation, thereby worsening the condition of human rights, the hope is that criminal trials will help to establish norms and expectations of punishment, making an example for current and future leaders in the country and beyond. While arguments calling for peace over justice may be forceful, one must only recall Hitler’s question “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” to observe the potential consequences of failure to pursue justice in the face of gross violations; for the Rwandan Hutu government, the international silence that met the 1972 slaughter of Hutu in Burundi may have taught them a similarly tragic lesson of impunity.[4]
.

The role of the ICTR is especially important given that it represents the first time that high-ranking individuals have been held accountable in an international court for mass human rights violations in Africa, and the first time that that a head of government has been convicted of genocide anywhere in the world. The standard-setting and abolishment of a culture of impunity that the ICTR has contributed to has helped enable national reconstruction, as well as the restoration of the rule of law to a war-ravaged zone, and thus helps to enable national reconstruction.
.

The ICTR: Past, Present, and Future
.

The ICTR is headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania. It is composed of three organs: The Chambers, including three Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, which hear trials, the Office of the Prosecutor, responsible for investigations and prosecutions, and the Registry, responsible for judicial and administrative support. Cases before the ICTR are heard at first instance by a Trial Chamber of three international temporary or permanent judges, and, if appealed, by the Appeals Chamber of five international permanent judges.
.

To date, 50 cases have been completed at the ICTR, including eight acquittals and eight cases pending appeal. Completed trials include those of the former Prime Minister, and several political and military leaders. These cases have played an important role in extending the concept of respondent superior to civil authorities, which has made it possible for the first woman prosecuted at the ICTR to be currently charged with rape via her responsibility for the acts of her subordinates. While the ICTR’s mandate covers violations of international humanitarian law committed by the RPF as well as by the Hutu forces, and the Prosecutor’s official stance is that it continues to investigate such cases against the RPF, it is important to note that not one Tutsi or member of the RPF has been tried at the ICTR.
.

The ICTR’s mandate has been extended several times by the UN Security Council, most recently until 2012. Currently, twenty four cases are in progress, several trials are ongoing, and two are pending after the recent arrest of two suspects in late 2009. The tentative date set to complete all first instance trials is by the end of 2011, with another two and a half years estimated for appeals. Although the vast majority of the originally indicted 90 high-priority suspects have been apprehended, eleven key fugitive suspects remain at large. The Prosecution has stepped up efforts to ensure the location and apprehension of these fugitives, and the ICTR President Dennis Byron has recently expressed that the goal of the tribunal will not be completed until each of the accused is arrested. Although not all of the indicted will be tried at the ICTR, four of them have been earmarked for trial at the ICTR based on their leadership status and extent of participation in the genocide, in accordance with the priorities laid out in Security Council resolution 1534 (2004). Others will most likely be transferred to national jurisdictions for trial.
.

While it has been nearly sixteen years since the Rwandan genocide, the year 2010 is a crucial time in implementation of the ICTR’s Completion Strategy in preparation for the end of its mandate, and particularly in attaining the goal of completing all first instance trials by the end of 2010.

Sources:
Alston, Philip, Henry J. Steiner, and Ryan Goodman. International Human Rights in Context. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Eltringham, Nigel. “Debating the Rwandan Genocide.” Violence, Political Culture & Development in Africa. Ed. Preben Kaarsholm. Oxford: James Curry Ltd., 2006.

Internet Site of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 8 June 2010.

Mamdani, Mahmood. The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency. London: London Review of Books, 2007.

Powell, Jeffrey H. “Amnesty, Reintegrating and Reconciliation in Rwanda.” Military Review 88.5 (October 2008): 84-90.

Prunier, Gerard. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. New York: Colombia University Press, 1995.

[1] Prunier, Gerard. The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide. New York: Colombia University Press, 1995. 36.
[2] Prunier, 50.
[3] Alston, Philip, Henry J. Steiner, and Ryan Goodman. International Human Rights in Context. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 1278.
[4] Eltringham, Nigel. “Debating the Rwandan Genocide.” Violence, Political Culture & Development in Africa. Ed. Preben Kaarsholm. Oxford: James Curry Ltd., 2006. 74.

Kia Ora from Wellington, New Zealand

Greetings, Kia Ora. I've completed my first week of work at the Wellington Community Law Centre in Wellington, NZ. The experience is already more than I could have ever hoped for this summer (winter here).

The office environment at the centre is one where you can truly tell that the lawyers and volunteers working here truly are committed to the service that they are providing. It is less of a situation of going to work for a set number of hours to get a pay check at the end of the week and more of a place where people are dedicated to providing legal services to those that cannot afford them financially on their own and those that also cannot afford to sit idly by as their rights are eroded.

In the first week of our work already, I have met with a number of clients. Most of my work will focus on Refugee and Immigration Legal Advice Sessions (RILAS). This week, that entailed everything from helping translate for some Spanish-speaking clients about a half hour train ride out of Wellington in Porirua, NZ to writing a memo on what type of documentation is standard for cultural marriages in Afghanistan, despite what may appear to be officially recognized as proper documentation by law. We focused our attention on cases where the client has refugee status but is seeking to obtain refugee status for the family that is left in the country of origin. I have found already that it can be a long and painful process of waiting and spotty success. Our work is important because we take a multiple prong approach to each case, working to bring the family over to NZ legally either as refugee or through normal immigration means, though this tends to be a much more difficult track to take.

Today I am off of work for public holiday for the Queen's birthday, so I've travelled north by bus to Rotorua for the weekend. I stand anxious to get into my next week of work at the centre and am optimistic about the changes that we can make in our clients' lives, though we all need to be patient and work in the framework available through the guidelines of Immigration New Zealand.

Sierra Leone, National Moot Competition on Humanitarian Law

Greetings from Sierra Leone! I am currently working with the Centre for Safe Motherhood, Youth, and Child Outreach (CESMYCO), a local NGO which addresses the rights of women and children, with a special focus on harmful traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation (FGM). At first the work was slow, due to my supervisor's travel to operational areas, power shortages, and sorting out confusion over what exactly I would be doing. Things have since fallen into place and the remainder of my time should be busy, but productive. I leave tomorrow morning for Kambia District, where I'll be conducting interviews on customary law's treatment of women and children.
My philosophy while traveling has always been to take advantage of any opportunities that may arise, and never stick too strictly to a set plan. This is how I came to find myself sitting on the judge's bench of the Special Court for Sierra Leone on Friday afternoon, presiding over a "trial". Through a colleague, I had the opportunity to get involved with the National Moot Court Competition on International Humanitarian Law. The competition, in its sixth year, offers students from local universities the opportunity to prosecute or defend alleged violations of IHL. Cosponsored by the Sierra Leone Red Cross and the Special Court, the winning team will advance to the Pan Africa finals in Tanzania.
Six teams competed-- only one containing law students-- working from fact patterns drawn loosely from scenarios in Afghanistan and Nigeria. On the first day, it became clear that the students had received little guidance on how to prepare and structure their arguments, although they had a decent grasp of the rules of IHL. We heard their cases, asked questions of both teams, and finally offered constructive feedback to improve their presentations. On the second day, we saw considerable improvement, both in the organization of their arguments and their confidence in answering our increasingly difficult questions. For these preliminary rounds, I served on a panel of four judges consisting of myself, a Canadian intern with the Special Court, a lawyer from Zain Mobile, and an army captain.
On Friday afternoon, I arrived at the Special Court, expecting to merely observe the final round. Instead the judges from the preliminary round were taken to the chambers of Justice Kamanda, president of the Special Court, where we spent an hour going through the fact pattern and discussing our opinions on the violations and potential arguments. We then proceeded to one of the courtrooms, where we presided over the competition.
Unfortunately, the quality of the final round was a disappointment. Much of the progress of the day before had been lost, and the students struggled to present their cases and to answer our questions. However, the opportunity to sit within the Court-- even for a simulation-- was incredible. At the reception following, I had the opportunity to speak with many of the students, with the representatives of the Red Cross, and with Justice Kamanda. While all of the teams have a long way to go in arguing a case, I was impressed with the students' passion for the principles of humanitarian law. For the remainder of my time in Sierra Leone, I have volunteered to help with occasional trainings to prepare the winning team to compete in Tanzania in November. While it isn't the project I came to do, I am looking forward to seeing the team progress over the next two months and will be wishing them the best when they reach Arusha.

Migrant Assistance Program (MAP), Chiang Mai, Thailand

Hey all--I'm finally settled into my apartment in Chiang Mai, Thailand, and so far I love the city. It's small enough to be manageable, so I'm getting around ok, and the food is great (yesterday I learned the essentials of how to order soup in Thai [step 1: specify the type of noodle you want. Step 2: specify your broth. Step 3: meat]). To get to work, I've been hailing song tao, open truck-taxis with two rows of seats that pick up passengers along a route made up as the driver goes along.

Work so far has been overwhelming, in a good way. I'm working for the Migrant Assistance Program Foundation for Ethnic Health and Labour (MAP), which deals with all things related to Burmese migrant workers in Thailand. The main office is in Chiang Mai, and there are smaller outposts in Mae Sot (a Burmese border town) and Phang Nga, which is on the southern coast and has lots of migrants working in the fishing industry. The MAP staff is mostly Thai or Burmese, with the exception of the Director, a British woman who has lived in Thailand for 30 years, and my supervisor, who's American. Reena, my supervisor, sat with the other intern (a Burmese woman who is studying in Hong Kong) and me this week to describe MAP's work. It was a long meeting, because the organization really seems to do everything: they have Thai lawyers on staff, who take all kinds of cases through the Thai judicial system on behalf of migrant workers; there is a group called POSH (Promoting Occupational Safety and Health) that conducts safety trainings for workers; the Community Health and Empowerment segment deals with migrant workers' access to health care, including HIV testing and access to ARVs; MAP Multimedia (MMM) runs a radio station that deals with issues pertinent to migrant workers in Chiang Mai (soon we'll be broadcasting in Mae Sot too), makes documentaries, and produces other materials that support the rest of MAP's projects; and MAP also runs an emergency safe house for migrant workers in crisis. I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out, but the general idea is that they provide social services, do advocacy on behalf of Burmese workers, and take on related legal cases. It's an amazing mix, and I have no idea how they do it with such a small staff.

I'll be helping the Legal Support write a "shadow report" for CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women). Each CEDAW signatory is supposed to submit reports on their progress in terms of conforming to the convention. NGOs write "shadow" or alternative reports supplementing the country submissions, with particular emphasis on the situation on the ground as related to the NGO's particular expertise. MAP's shadow report will deal with CEDAW General Recommendation 26, which focuses on the rights of women migrant workers. To do this, I'll be traveling with MAP staff to Songklaburi, Thailand, where they will conduct a training that will alert migrant women to their rights as workers. At the same time the training will allow us to gather information on abuses that migrant women suffer. Along with information from other trainings, and research on Thai law, we'll compile a snapshot of the situation for Burmese migrant women along the border and will make recommendations to the Thai government and the CEDAW committee on how Thailand can better conform to their international legal obligations under the convention.

The picture uploader isn't working but I'll try to add some soon.

Frustration

Yesterday I started working for an organization call Timap for Justice in Sierra Leone. I had very high expectations in terms of what my work assignments would be. Unfortunately, I was disappointed and as a result don't have much to blog about my much anticipated first day of work. I spent my first day waiting to meet with the director of the organization. A group of us, all American Law School Students waited approximately 6 hours without being given a substantive assignment. I left the first day of work extremely frustrated. However, I have decided that I am going to go back to my assignment with a positive attitude and hope that things improve.

Asochivida.org

Now that we have safely returned back to the states, Scott, Jenny and I have been able to complete the website we created for the group of terminally ill ex-sugar cane workers whom we were aiding during the final portion of our time in Nicaragua. I encourage everyone to check out the website we spent countless hours creating at ASOCHIVIDA.org! On our website you will be able to read about the terrible epidemic that is ruining their community, the impact that the deaths of thousands of workers has had, and the current negotiations underway between the workers and the factory with the assistance of the World Bank's alternative dispute resolution mechanism. You can also read personal narratives from the workers themselves about their experiences both working for the factory and discovering they are ill with Chronic Renal Failure. I apologize for the brevity of this blog post, but all I have to say has already been put into words on our website, again at ASOCHIVIDA.org.

Adios from the Swamp - Washington, DC

So my first post is coming during my last week at the Federal Judicial Center here in Washington, DC. The summer has flown by and aside from the relatively mild heat (by DC standards), my time at the FJC has been a great experience.


Having initially worked with the Leitner Center and FJC last October in Ghana, the opportunity to do so again was something I jumped at. The International Judicial Relations Office of the FJC works in Washington and abroad to help foreign judiciaries develop fair, efficient, and effective justice systems.



As such, I've spent the summer working on a variety of different projects related to upcoming FJC initiatives. To help US Federal Judges participating in training conferences in Afghanistan and Iraq, I've been researching and writing on Islamic Law. I've also worked on Opinion Writing and Ethics presentations that will be used in an upcoming FJC trip to Uganda and background information on Latin American judiciaries for an upcoming trip to Argentina.




All in all, the summer at the Federal Judicial Center has been interesting and educational. Working on such broad and diverse projects that directly impact the lives of so many around the world will surely be missed when I'm soon sitting in Professional Responsibility . :P