EGN NEWS DESK
(ALEXANDRIA, Va.) — A U.S. jury on Tuesday awarded $42 million to a few former detainees of Iraq’s infamous Abu Ghraib jail, holding a Virginia-based navy contractor answerable for contributing to their torture and mistreatment twenty years in the past.
The resolution from the eight-person jury got here after a special jury earlier this 12 months could not agree on whether or not Reston, Virginia-based CACI must be held responsible for the work of its civilian interrogators who labored alongside the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004.
The jury awarded plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili and Asa’advert Al-Zubae $3 million every in compensatory damages and $11 million every in punitive damages.
The three testified that they had been subjected to beatings, sexual abuse, compelled nudity and different merciless remedy on the jail.
They didn’t allege that CACI’s interrogators explicitly inflicted the abuse themselves, however argued CACI was complicit as a result of its interrogators conspired with navy police to “soften up” detainees for questioning with harsh remedy.
CACI’s lawyer, John O’Connor, didn’t remark after Tuesday’s verdict on whether or not the corporate would enchantment.
Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed the lawsuit on the plaintiffs’ behalf, known as the decision “an vital measure of Justice and accountability” and praised the three plaintiffs for his or her resilience, “particularly within the face of all of the obstacles CACI threw their means.”
The $42 million totally matches the quantity sought by the plaintiffs, Azmy mentioned.
“Today is an enormous day for me and for justice,” mentioned Al-Ejaili, a journalist, in a written assertion. “I’ve waited a very long time for this present day. This victory isn’t just for the three plaintiffs on this case in opposition to an organization. This victory is a shining gentle for everybody who has been oppressed and a powerful warning to any firm or contractor practising completely different types of torture and abuse.”
Al-Ejaili traveled to the U.S. for each trials to testify in particular person. The different two plaintiffs testified by video from Iraq.
The trial and subsequent retrial had been the primary time a U.S. jury heard claims introduced by Abu Ghraib survivors within the 20 years since images of detainee mistreatment — accompanied by smiling U.S. troopers inflicting the abuse — shocked the world through the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
None of the three plaintiffs had been in any of the infamous images proven in information stories world wide, however they described remedy similar to what was depicted.
Al Shimari described sexual assaults and beatings throughout his two months on the jail. He additionally mentioned he was electrically shocked and dragged across the jail by a rope tied round his neck. Al-Ejaili mentioned he was subjected to emphasize positions that precipitated him to vomit black liquid. He was additionally disadvantaged of sleep, compelled to put on girls’s underwear and threatened with canines.
CACI had argued it wasn’t complicit within the detainees’ abuse. It mentioned its workers had minimal interplay with the three plaintiffs within the case, and CACI questioned components of the plaintiffs’ tales, saying that navy information contradict a few of their claims and suggesting they shaded their tales to assist a case in opposition to the contractor. Fundamentally, although, CACI argued that any legal responsibility for his or her mistreatment belonged to the federal government.
As within the first trial, the jury struggled to determine whether or not CACI or the Army must be held answerable for any misconduct by CACI interrogators. The jury requested questions in its deliberations about whether or not the contractor or the Army bore legal responsibility.
CACI, as one among its defenses, argued it shouldn’t be responsible for any misdeeds by its workers in the event that they had been underneath the management and route of the Army. underneath a authorized precept often called the “borrowed servants” doctrine.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that CACI was answerable for its personal workers’ misdeeds. They mentioned provisions in CACI’s contract with the Army, in addition to the Army Field Manual, clarify that CACI is answerable for overseeing its personal staff.
The lawsuit was first filed in 2008 however was delayed by 15 years of authorized wrangling and a number of makes an attempt by CACI to have the case dismissed.
Lawyers for the three plaintiffs argued that CACI was liable for his or her mistreatment even when they couldn’t show that CACI’s interrogators had been those who straight inflicted the abuse.
The proof included stories from two retired Army generals, who documented the abuse and concluded that a number of CACI interrogators had been complicit within the abuse.
Those stories concluded that one of many interrogators, Steven Stefanowicz, lied to investigators about his conduct and that he doubtless instructed troopers to mistreat detainees and used canines to intimidate detainees throughout interrogations.
Stefanowicz testified for CACI at trial by way of a recorded video deposition and denied mistreating detainees.
