Allocution de Me Juan E. Méndez
M. Michel Jébrak, Vice –President of the University, research. Pr. René Côté, Dean of the Law School Members of the Faculty Graduates, students, and families:
D'être choisi pour un doctorat honorifique est un grand honneur. De le recevoir au cours de cette cérémonie si chaleureuse et accueillante est extrêmement émouvant pour moi ainsi que pour ma famille. Je chérirai toujours cet honneur et lui donnerai une place très particulière dans mon cœur.
Je suis d'autant plus fier de recevoir ce diplôme que celui-ci vient de l'Université de Québec à Montréal, dont la faculté de droit et de science politique a été fondée avec l'intention explicite de former des avocats qui seront dévoué à la défense des droits et des intérêts des moins privilégiés dans la société. De la défense des droits des travailleurs aux intérêts des syndicats, de la suppression de différentes formes de discriminations à la protection des libertés des droits fondamentaux de tous et partout, les avocats formés dans ces lieux dédient leurs aptitudes et leurs talents, leurs professions et leurs vies à la réalisation des droits humains. Ayant essayé d'œuvrer dans ces mêmes lignes depuis que je suis devenu avocat en 1970, votre décision de m'honorer ainsi est immensément gratifiante, tout en me rendant à la fois très humble.
To be chosen for an honorary academic degree is a high honor and distinction. To receive it in this warm, welcoming ceremony is particularly moving for me and my family. I will always cherish this honor and will keep it in a special place in my heart.
I am even more honored to receive this degree because it comes from the University of Quebec at Montreal, whose Law School has been founded with the explicit intent to prepare lawyers that are committed to the defense of the rights and interests of the least powerful in society. From the defense of workers' rights and trade union interests, to the suppression of different forms of discrimination, to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for all and everywhere, attorneys trained in these halls dedicate their skills and talents, their professions and their lives, to the effective fulfillment of human rights. Having tried to do something along those same lines since I became a lawyer in 1970, your decision to honor me is immensely gratifying and humbling at the same time.
For someone who works primarily in the realm of international human rights, it is a very special privilege to receive an honorary degree in Canada. Your country is an example to the world in the struggle to create an ever more just and egalitarian society, and the foreign and international development policies of Canada are a beacon of hope to many victims of human rights abuse in the rest of the world.
I have practiced extensively before the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights and I served one term as commissioner in the former, between 2000 and 2003. These organs contribute very effectively to improving the quality of democracy in the Americas and generate enforceable standards of human rights performance that other parts of the world will do well to imitate. Since becoming a member of the OAS, Canada has been a champion of their integrity and independence. Of course, she will be in a better position to enhance the contributions of the system of human rights protection when she becomes a party to the American Convention of Human Rights and accepts the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, which I hope will happen soon.
As the Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Prevention of Genocide, I have just completed thirty months of a fascinating experiment to provide early warning to the international community, assimilating the lessons we must learn from our failure to prevent the genocides of Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990s. It has been an arduous and often frustrating job, but I bring the good news that the UN has decided to upgrade the office by making the position full time and naming Francis Deng, a highly experienced human rights jurist and a person of high integrity, to replace me. I thank Canada especially for championing the emerging norm of Responsibility to Protect, unanimously adopted by the 2005 Summit Outcome document, perhaps the only part of that document meant to usher in the reform of the United Nations that did not disappoint our expectations. This doctrine spearheaded by Canada provides a strong injection of legitimacy and credibility to the efforts to prevent mass atrocity in today's world.
At the International Center for Transitional Justice, we work in a cutting edge theme of human rights protection in the beginning of the 21st century. Transitional Justice addresses the need to break the cycle of impunity for major human rights crimes. In this respect, Canadian leadership has been key to the promulgation of the Statute of Rome and to the creation of the International Criminal Court.
At ICTJ we disseminate the best practices of societies that have faced the challenge of impunity as they move from dictatorship to democracy or from conflict to peace. Those practices are initiated and implemented in each country by lawyers and civic leaders who do not accept the premise that the plight of victims should be swept under the rug for the sake of a false reconciliation imposed from above.
Because of those practices, international human rights law now recognizes that, in the face of a legacy of widespread or systematic abuses, the State is obliged to seek and disclose the truth where there is denial and refusal to accept responsibility. The State is also obliged to investigate, prosecute and punish war crimes and crimes against humanity, and to do so through prosecutions that respect the rights of both defendants and victims to due process of law. Victims are also owed reparations for their suffering, in amounts and modalities that signify that they are no longer considered second-class citizens. And the State institutions, especially those through which power and force is exercised, must be reformed so that their authority will not in the future be abused to commit human rights violations. These separate but related obligations are the formula for obtaining true and lasting national reconciliation. In cases where the crimes have had specific ethnic, racial or religious dimensions, it is also necessary to heal open wounds through inter-communal conversations aimed at reconciliation.
We pursue truth, justice, reparations, institutional reform and reconciliation for their own sake, and also because they offer the best chance to obtain lasting peace. We disagree with the proposition that, for the sake of peace, a negotiated resolution to the conflict must sacrifice the rights of victims to see justice done. This is a serious dilemma and we do not claim that the imperatives of justice must prevail even if it means that the conflict will rage on, creating new human rights violations. We believe very strongly, however, that peace and justice can and must be conceived of in mutually reinforcing ways, and that the path to a lasting peace is one in which justice is given a chance.
It is difficult to say that justice will always have the effect of preventing future human rights violations. Nevertheless, at the heart of the canon of international human rights standards is the belief that we redress wrongs as a means of preventing their recurrence. The Genocide Convention of 1948 is designed to prevent and to punish the crime of genocide, and punishment is conceived of as a preventive tool. In my task as Special Advisor, when I suggested actions by the international community that could prevent situations from deteriorating into genocide, I frequently advocated measures to break the cycle of impunity and to signify to victims that their plight was not forgotten. Of course, prevention of mass atrocities requires other actions as well: armed protection of vulnerable communities; immediate provision of humanitarian relief services to reverse the cycle of victimization and the effects of crimes already committed; and peace talks to resolve the underlying conflict. Still, there are practical, immediate reasons why prevention must be premised on accountability: if impunity prevails, the beneficiaries of our actions will never feel safe enough to contribute to their own protection and well-being. Allowing the perpetrators to be free and to remain in positions of power and influence constitutes an invitation for them to repeat their crimes. Impunity also complicates the task of offering protection, delivering relief and bringing the parties to the conflict to the bargaining table.
Thank you for your attention to these musings. I hope in some way they help you, today's graduates, as you go into the legal profession with the skills and commitment that UQAM has bestowed upon you, and as you choose the many ways in which we as lawyers can serve the highest principles of our profession. The law has been justly criticized for creating norms, procedures and practices designed to protect the privileges and interests of the powerful. But we all know that there have always been shining examples of lawyers for whom the law is, first and foremost, a tool to realize social justice and to bring about progressive change. Allow me to share with you the name of one such lawyer who I have considered my mentor through my human rights career: Emilio F. Mignone, the father of a 24-year-old socially conscious Catholic activist, Monica Mignone, who became one of Argentina's desaparecidas in the dirty war of the late 1970s. Fueled by this incomparable grief, Emilio founded one of the outstanding human rights organizations in the hemisphere and prompted the Inter-American system of protection to issue powerful standards against impunity. With the advent of democracy, Emilio promoted truth-telling, prosecutions, reparations and institutional reform, effectively creating the discipline of transitional justice. I hope his example can guide you in your future endeavors as it still guides me. Congratulations to all of you.
Thank you.
