Abebe-Jira v. Negewo

Citations: 72 F.3d 844; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 321; 1996 WL 204Docket: 93-9133

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; January 10, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kelbessa Negewo appeals a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which awarded compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiffs Hirute Abebe-Jira, Edgegayehu Taye, and Elizabeth Demissie under the Alien Tort Claims Act for acts of torture and cruel treatment. The case arises from the mid-1970s during Ethiopia's military dictatorship, known as 'the Dergue,' which implemented a campaign of terror, including torture and executions. Negewo served as chairman of Higher Zone 9, where significant abuses occurred.

Abebe-Jira was arrested in December 1977 and held without charges for two weeks before being tortured by Negewo and others, including severe whipping and death threats. She remained imprisoned for three months. Taye was arrested in February 1978, tortured, and left with permanent scars after enduring severe beatings and water torture, remaining incarcerated for ten months. Demissie was arrested in April 1977 along with her family and later tortured in a similar manner, with her sister disappearing during detention.

The district court found Negewo personally supervised and participated in the torture of all three women. After their release, the plaintiffs fled to the U.S. and Canada. The court affirmed the damages awarded for their suffering.

In September 1990, the appellees initiated a lawsuit against Negewo under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) for torture and cruel treatment. Negewo made three requests for appointed counsel, which the district court denied, stating he did not provide sufficient justification for such appointment. The court did not formally address his third request. After a two-day bench trial, the court found Negewo liable, awarding each appellee $200,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Negewo appealed, claiming the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the ATCA, arguing it does not create a private right of action or reference a treaty or federal law. He also contended the suit was barred by the political question doctrine.

The appellees countered that a literal interpretation of the ATCA confirms the district court's jurisdiction and that the political question doctrine does not apply. Negewo raised two additional claims: a statute of limitations defense based on Georgia's two-year limit for tort actions, which was not considered since it was not raised in the lower court, and an argument regarding the appointment of counsel, which was denied due to a lack of exceptional circumstances. The appellate court reviewed the jurisdictional issue de novo, referencing the ATCA's provision for federal jurisdiction over civil actions for torts committed in violation of international law or U.S. treaties. The leading case, Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, established that federal courts can assert jurisdiction under the ATCA based on evolving international law, concluding that official torture is prohibited by the law of nations.

The Filartiga court did not directly address whether the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) allows for a private right of action. However, the Second Circuit suggested that the ATCA does not create new rights for aliens but facilitates access to federal courts for rights recognized by international law. Following Filartiga, most courts have interpreted section 1350 as providing both a private cause of action and a federal forum for aliens to seek redress for violations of international law, including genocide and war crimes. Notable cases like Hilao v. Estate of Marcos and Xuncax v. Gramajo support this interpretation, emphasizing that section 1350 offers a cause of action for torts committed in violation of international human rights standards. The statute requires only that an alien alleges a tort in violation of international law to invoke federal jurisdiction. The conditions for jurisdiction under section 1350 include that the plaintiff be an alien, that the claim involves a tort, and that it pertains to a violation of international law. The language of the statute implies that no additional enabling statute is necessary to pursue claims under the ATCA.

Support for the ruling is found in the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), which reinforces the Filartiga line of cases and provides a clear cause of action for aliens under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). The ATCA allows federal courts to hear claims from aliens for torts that violate international law, establishing a federal forum where domestic remedies can be created for such violations. Congress has the authority to grant jurisdiction to federal courts while allowing them to develop remedies aligned with federal policy. The political question doctrine, which prevents judicial intervention in issues reserved for the legislative or executive branches, does not apply in this case, as not all foreign relations matters are outside judicial review. The court cites Linder v. Portocarrero, affirming that the political question doctrine does not preclude tort actions in similar contexts. As a result, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.