Long arm of justice
Victims of human rights abuses in Iran can sue in U.S. courts

Bahar Mirhosseini
February 8, 2006
iranian.com

Based on the Alien Torts Claims Act (ATCA), it may be possible for Iranian plaintiffs to file suit and seek monetary damages for human rights violations (such as torture) experienced in Iran.  The Alien Torts Claims Act allows “non Americans to sue for human rights abuses in U.S. Courts.” See: Center for Constitutional Rights, www.ccr-ny.org. 

In 1979 Rhonda Copelon and Peter Weiss, attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights, used ATCA to litigate Filartiga v. Pena-Irala – a landmark human rights case with a $10.4 million dollar judgment awarded for the torture and murder of Paraguayan 17 year old Joelito Filartiga.

The following information regarding filing of such international human rights claims (under ATCA) is based on a guide published by Jennifer Green and Beth Stephens at the Center for Constitutional Rights, “An Activists Guide: Bringing International Human Rights Claims in United States Courts”.  

To file a claim, there must be a gross violation of international human rights law (such as torture).  If the suit is filled against an individual perpetrator of the human rights violations, that perpetrator must reside in the United States.  If the suit is filled against a corporation, the corporation must be based in the United States or at least have sufficient minimal contacts with the United States to enable the jurisdiction of U.S. courts over the entity. 

Direct victims, legal representatives of the direct victim, and close family members (on behalf of the direct victim or on their own behalf, based on the family’s suffering as a result of the violations suffered by the direct victim) are potential plaintiffs in a suit filed under the Alien Torts Claims Act. 

Using the Alien Torts Claims Act, the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed suit for reparations on behalf of the victims of South African Apartheid.  Other suits pending and filed under the act include defendants such as Unocal, Shell, and Chevron.  In Matar v. Dichter, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights filed a class action suit against Israel’s former Director of General Security Service on behalf of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the 2002 air strike. 

The possibility of Iranian plaintiffs (whether living in the U.S. or abroad) suing for the human rights violations inflicted by perpetrators currently residing in the U.S. or by corporations with at least minimal U.S. contacts – is a possibility worth the research and investigation. 

The Alien Torts Claims Act has significantly expanded the use of law in advocating and seeking compensation on behalf of victims of human rights abuses.  While post 9-11 political realities may ostensibly present prospective obstacles in the success of a suit filed by Iranian plaintiffs in a U.S. Court against corporations with minimal contacts in the U.S. (or against a perpetrator currently residing in the U.S.) – judicial decisions have not always been based on the political desirability of the suit. 

For example, after 9-11, in Rasul v. Bush, the United States Supreme Court held in favor of Center for Constitutional Rights, which successfully argued that detainees at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba have the legal “right to challenge their detention in a U.S. Court.” See Center for Constitutional Rights, www.ccr-ny.org.  Information about the Alien Torts Claims Act and past and pending international human rights cases can be found at the same website.

Bahar Mirhosseini is a second year law student and Haywood Burns Fellow in Civil and Human Rights at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law.