The clinic combines regular classroom instruction with specially tailored exercises and simulations designed to instill the basics of good legal practice. In addition to research and writing, the clinic fosters the development of other fundamental lawyering skills, such as interviewing and counseling clients, fact investigation and development, case organization and management, legal drafting, and oral advocacy.

To bridge theory and practice, the Human Rights Clinic provides students with hands-on experience working on active human rights cases and projects. Though most skills-training is imparted through classroom instruction and simulations, it is applied and tested in the context of real-world advocacy. Working in partnership with experienced attorneys and institutions engaged in human rights activism, both in the United States and abroad, students contribute to effecting positive change locally and globally. In recent semesters, clinic students have engaged in transitional-justice research and participated in sessions of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, students were involved in petitioning the Inter-American Commission to protect the rights of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Students have also worked with Human Rights Watch and other groups to focus the attention of the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on whether the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service is complying with international standards in its "war on terrorism" detentions.

"The Human Rights Clinic was an experience unlike anything else in law school because it's modeled on a real-world scenario. You have actual clients with real needs, in real time, and you have real deadlines. You can see how the doctrine that you're learning affects people's lives. The collaborative aspects of clinical work are a strong part of that reality. We're co-counsel in almost every case, so we work with real organizations, as well as with lawyers and advocates in the United States and abroad, and we have not only responsibilities to our clients but to our co-counsel." --Carrie Bettinger-Lopez '04

Peter Rosenblum
212-854-4291

Caroline Bettinger-Lopez, Fellow and Human Rights Clinic Supervising Attorney

Phone: (212) 854-8364

Email: cbetti1@law.columbia.edu

>> Full Biography

JESSICA GONZALES v. United States of America

The Human Rights Clinic of Columbia Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union represent Jessica Lenahan, formerly Gonzales, in Jessica Gonzales v. United States of America. Gonzales, whose daughters were abducted by her estranged husband and killed after the police repeatedly refused to enforce her domestic violence restraining order against him, spoke before The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on March 2, 2007, after all domestic avenues of justice were closed to her.

Previously Ms. Gonzales brought a lawsuit against the Castle Rock Police Dept and individual officers, but in June 2005, the Supreme Court found that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. The question of whether the human rights of Jessica Gonzales have been violated lays before the international tribunal. Their decision is expected in the fall of 2007.

For more details, contact Caroline Bettinger-López, Supervising Attorney at Columbia's Human Rights Clinic, at cbetti1@law.columbia.edu or 212-854-8364.

If you are interested in viewing or listening to the hearing, you can download the video or audio (4th entry under March 2).

Click here to read the Summary of the Hearing and 14 Specific Recommendations for actions that the United States can take to effectively comply with its responsibilities under the American Declaration and international human rights law.

 Post hearing brief. Click here to read.

Read Jessica's statement to the IACHR here
Fact Sheet on Protective Orders and the Role of Police Enforcement
Timeline of Gonzales v. United States of America
Petition to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Dec 2005

Exhibits, Dec 2005:
A: Temporary Restraining Order
B: Permanent Restraining Order
C:  District Court Order
D: 10th Cir Panel Decision
E: 10th Cir En Banc Decision
F: Supreme Court Decision

Brief to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Dec 2006

Exhibits, Dec 2006
A: Jessica Ruth Gonzales, Verified Complaint For Restraining Order
B: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, CR# 99-3223
C: Freedom of Information Law Requests to Colorado State And Local Agencies
D: Letter to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales)
F: Progress Report, CR #99-26856, Report by Investigator Rick Fahlstedt
G: Castle Rock Police Department Dispatch Log
H: Castle Rock Police Department Individual Inquiry on Simon Gonzales
I: Critical Incident Team Report
J: Police Emergency Mental Illness Report
K: "A Law Enforcement Officers' Guide To Enforcing Orders Of Protection Nationwide"
L: Amicus Brief of National Network To End Domestic Violence in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
M: Amicus Brief of National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales
N: Interview with William George Palsulich by 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m.
O: "Return To State Background Checks Results in 8 Denials on First Day," The Gazette, August 3, 1999
P: Declaration of Randy James Saucedo, Dated December 6, 2006
Q: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Violation of a Restraining Order, Domestic Violence), Dated May 30, 1999
R: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Trespass on Private Property; Obstruction of Duties of Public Official), Dated May 30, 1999
S: Castle Rock Police Department Municipal Summons, Dated April 18, 1999.
Declaration of Randy Saucedo, Dec 2006
Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan, Dec 2006

October 5, 2007 UPDATE
Groundbreaking Decision For Domestic Violence Victims Returned

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights returned an admissibility decision on October 5, 2007, in favor of Jessica Lenahan  (formerly Gonzales), affirming her assertion that she had exhausted all domestic avenues in her search for justice. 

"This is the best decision that we could have hoped for," said Carrie Bettinger-Lopez, Human Rights Fellow at Columbia Law School and the lead attorney for Ms. Lenahan. "The decision says that countries in the Americas, including the United States, are responsible under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man for protecting victims of domestic violence from private acts of violence."

The admissibility phase of this case is the first of a two phase process. In the next phase, the merits phase, the Commission will decide whether the U.S and the Castle Rock Police Department (Colorado) violated the human rights of Jessica Gonzales and her children, specifically the rights to life, nondiscrimination, family life/unity, due process, petition the government, and the right s of domestic violence victims and their children to special protections.

Read the Admissibility Decision
Read the Amicus Brief Filed in Support of Jessica Gonzales
Appendix to Amicus Brief

Additional Resources on Gonzales v. United States of America:
Women’s Rights Project, ACLU
Jessica Gonzales' website
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
IACHR Rapporteurship on the Rights of Women
 

MERITS BRIEF FILED IN Gonzales v. United States of America, March 24, 2008:

3.24.08 Gonzales Merits Brief
3.24.08 Gonzales Merits Brief Exhibits

THE RIGHT TO MOVE FREELY

The Human Rights Clinic serves as lead counsel in an ongoing case in the Inter-American human rights system challenging the Dominican Republic's practice of summarily expelling Haitians and Haitian-Dominicans without hearings. Clinic students have appeared before the Inter-American Commission and Court for Human Rights of the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., and have traveled to the Dominican Republic to update clients and attend meetings with representatives from both the Dominican government and the commission. Representing five families of Haitian descent, the students, together with co-counsel, secured an order of protective measures for their clients from the Inter-American Court. In a major victory, the Dominican government issued special documentation to the clients, which allows them to move freely between the two countries and to work in the Dominican Republic until their case is resolved. One result of the case has been the reunification of a family whose members had been separated since the 1994 expulsion of the mother and two daughters from the Dominican Republic.