voir dire 2014 issue 1

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRE-LAW SOCIETY

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

THIS ISSUE :

VOLUMEIX ISSUEI OCTOBER2013


voirdire

Voir Dire means “to speak the truth” in Old French.

Launched in April 2004 as the brainchild of Andrea Wong, Voir Dire

serves as a medium for promoting the knowledge, interest, and

involvement of U of T students considering a future in the field of law.

Voir Dire is published in print and online on academic quarterly basis.

WHAT’S INSIDE ?

Meet The Executives

3

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

2 UN'S ARMS

TRADE TREATY FACES MAJOR ROADBLOCK

5 THE PRECARIOUS CONDITION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

7 THE UNITED NATIONS

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

14

THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SYRIA

12

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LAW SCHOOL

APPLICATION PROCESS

11

[Cover Page Image from http://sonomachristianhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Books-Old-Law-Sized.jpg]

voirdire

PAGE 2 VOLUMEIX ISSUEI OCTOBER2013

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UOFT PRE-LAW SOCIETY

Dear members of the University of Toronto Pre-Law Society and Voir Dire readership,

On behalf of the Executive Council and the Voir Dire Committee, we would like to thank

you for taking the time to read our first issue of the 2013-2014 academic year.

The Voir Dire is a student-run journal devoted to articles addressing pertinent and pressing

legal issues that are occuring on a national and international scale. Published on an

academic quarterly basis, each issue will contain a theme, with this first issue focusing on

international human rights. The Voir Dire aims to provide a platform for discussion on broad

range of issues in order to build a knowledge base that is applicable to both public and

private sector careers.

The Voir Dire would not have its success without the dynamic group of students and

professionals behind it. On its 14th year of production, I am confident that this year's

committee will continue to uphold the Voir Dire's golden standards and continue to

stimulate intellectual conversation and discourse.

As President of The Society, I am thrilled to be working alongside an admirable brigade of

fellow students that compose the Executive Council and Voir Dire committee, our fantastic

sponsors, and the various individuals and groups that we will be working with to encourage

and assist students who are interested in pursuing further legal studies and/or careers in the

legal industry. As a student body, we strive to uphold University of Toronto’s worldwide

reputation of academic excellence and distinction.

I hope that you, our readers, find enjoyment in these pages in the midst of midterm season,

meeting essay deadlines, and well, just life in general, while gaining insightful and valuable

knowledge. The Pre-Law Society wishes you all nothing but the absolute best in your studies

and we hope that you join us in making this yet another exciting and memorable year.

Sincerely,

Michaela Santos

President, 2013-2014

University of Toronto Pre-Law Society

Executive Council 2013-2014

University of Toronto Pre-Law Society


2013-2014 UTPLS EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

PRESIDENT Michaela Santos

4th Year Major Cultural Anthropology

Minor Health & Environmental Studies

Inspiring Legal Figure: My Great Grandfather

VICE-PRESIDENT

Angela Lespa

3rd Year Double Major Ethics, Society Law & Criminology

Inspiring Legal Figure: Ronald Dworkin and John Borrows

JUNIOR EXECUTIVE

Areya Desai

1st Year Social Sciences

Inspiring Legal Figure: My Grandfather &

Harvey Specter

JUNIOR EXECUTIVE

Justin Satosek

2nd Year Political Science Specialist

History Minors

Inspiring Legal Figure: Brian Greenspan

ACCOUNTS MANAGER

Mark Lauriola

4th Year Political Science

& Religion Double Major

Inspiring Legal Figure: Terry Hrycyna

TREASURER

Daisy Qin

4th Year Political Science Specialist

History minor

Inspiring Legal Figure: Beverly McLachlan

PRESIDENT

Berent Batur

2nd Year Political Science &

American Studies Majors

Inspiring Legal Figure: Chief Justice John Roberts

EVENTS DIRECTOR

Jivika Desai

4th Year Political Science Major European Studies & History Minors

Inspiring Legal Figure: Harvey Specter

JUNIOR EXECUTIVE

Kimberley Nguyen

2nd Year Economic & Architectural Studies Majors Philosophy Minor

Inspiring Legal Figure: My Father, Chan Nguyen

MOCK TRIALS DIRECTOR

Anthony Deluca

4th Year Political Science & Philosophy Double Major

Inspiring Legal Figure: Gord Kirk

WEB|ONLINE CONTENT COORDINATOR

Aaron Azzoli

3rd Year Arts and Science

Inspiring Legal Figure: My Mom

COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR

Kevin Sriram

4th Year Political Science and English Majors

Inspiring Legal Figure: Johnnie Cochran

SECRETARY Rida Ali


2013-2014 VOIR DIRE TEAM

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Maria-Christina Christodoulou

3rd Year Double Major in Philosophy &

Ethics, Society & Law

Inspiring Legal Figure: Malala Yousafzai

WRITER Ali Aun Syed

3rd Year History

Inspiring Legal Figure: Howard A. Levitt

ASSITANT EDITOR Nina Modaresi

4th Year Major in English

Minor in Writing & Rhetoric, & French

Inspiring Legal Figure: Shirin Ebadi

Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi

WRITER Karishma Prasanna

2nd Year Economics & Public Policy Majors

Political Science Minor

WRITER Malcolm Peck-McQueen

3rd Year Political Science

Specialist

Inspiring Legal Figure: Luis Moreno Ocampo

WRITER Jenny Du

3rd Year Double Majors in Psychology and Sociology

Inspiring Legal Figure: Clarence Darrow, Mike Ross

WRITER Sahar Rostami

LAYOUT DESIGNER Tirthak Patel

2nd Year Electrical and Computer Engineering

Inspiring Legal Figure: Avi, a UofT Engineering Graduate working in Law

ASSISTANT EDITOR Alexandria Matic

3rd Year International relations, Political Science and French

Inspiring Legal Figure: Patricia J. Williams

WRITER Tiffany Huynh

3rd Year Ethics, Society & law and Women & Gender Studies

WRITER Sarah Karim

3rd Year Equality Studies & Sexual Diversity Studies

Inspiring Legal Figure: Sherene Razack


UN'S ARMS TRADE TREATY FACES MAJOR ROADBLOCK Malcolm Peck-McQueen On April 2, 2013, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a multilateral agreement intended to regulate state conduct in the international trade of conventional arms. The treaty pertains to a multitude of weapons, ranging from light arms to tanks and combat aircraft. The UN supports the implementation of the ATT on the grounds of international security and human rights, reasons that are both quite compelling. Exportation of light and heavy weapons to violent organizations and regimes often contributes to regional instability, while the power that weapons confer upon their recipients frequently results in violations of basic human rights, including life, freedom of assembly, and freedom of speech.

Through the ATT, the UN seeks to facilitate international security and prevent abuses of universal human rights by only permitting the legitimate trade of arms. According to proponents of the treaty, the ATT has the potential to facilitate the realization of these goals. Firstly, the treaty’s implementation requirements are expected to reduce human rights

abuses associated with armed conflict. Specifically, Article 5 (2) of the ATT declares that “each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty.” More importantly, Article 5 (4) states that “each State Party, pursuant to its national laws, shall provide its national control list to the Secretariat, which shall make it available to other State Parties. State Parties are encouraged to make their control lists publicly available.” Essentially, the treaty requires internal disclosure within the UN bureaucracy and encourages public disclosure of a state's arms regulation. These provisions are potential enforcement mechanisms. States would have access to one another's regulation reports (or lack thereof) and could determine diplomatic responses accordingly. For instance, if a state such as China fails to report their arms regulation to the UN Secretariat, and other parties have reason to believe that the state has exported arms to conflict zones, then sanctions could be instituted to pressure Beijing into complying with the treaty's provisions. Additionally, because the ATT encourages public disclosure of arms regulation, the agreement has the power to bring about responsible arms trading to reduce human rights abuses. Regular and transparent reporting on states’ decisions, regarding the export or import of

arms, has the potential to mobilize civil society. If the public has access to the records of arms trading that states engage in, they can identify governments that are trading arms to violators of human rights. Subsequently, civil society could challenge these practices and pressure governments into implementing ATT provisions to protect human rights.

However, although the aforementioned mechanisms of the ATT may help to effectively regulate the arms trade and protect human rights, proponents of the agreement should temper their optimism, as there remains a significant obstacle to the implementation of the treaty's central principles.


The chief roadblock to arms regulation is that the most influential arms exporters are unlikely to sign, ratify, and implement the treaty anytime in the near future. The United States, China, and Russia initially delayed attempts to complete the treaty and open it for signature. Now that the treaty negotiations have been concluded, they have yet to sign the agreement. This poses a grave problem for the prevention of human rights abuses associated with illicit arms trading. Without the largest arms exporters implementing the treaty provisions, weapons will still be traded to violent regimes and will continue to be used to harm innocent individuals. Russia and China, for instance, have exported arms to Syria's Bashar al-Assad that have undoubtedly been used to injure and kill innocent Syrian citizens. Without the signature, ratification, and implementation of the ATT, it is extremely likely that these leading exporters will continue to engage in the illicit arms trade and contribute to horrific human rights abuses.

Furthermore, the unwillingness of the United States, Russia, and China in particular, may have severe consequences for the ATT. The UN’s attempt to regulate the international arms trade, has given rise to an issue associated with collective action problems: states will be have little incentive to abide by the treaty's obligations if other states do not sign and still reap the benefits of other countries’ participation. The United States, Russia, and China will discourage other states from implementing the ATT because of the requirement that some arms export trading must cease, according to the treaty's legal criteria. The states abiding by the export control criteria, while acting to prevent human rights abuses, may thus face economic disadvantages. Meanwhile, the large arms exporters who have not signed the treaty will continue to enjoy the economic benefits associated with the arms trade. Therefore, given the unwillingness of the United States, Russia, and China even sign the ATT, it is not rational for other states to ratify it.

Clearly then, these three states pose a significant hurdle to the achievement of the ATT's goal of preventing human rights abuses associated with the illicit arms trade. Without the signatures of the United States, Russia, and China, arms will continue to flow from these countries to regimes and organizations that commit senseless acts of violence

against innocent civilians. Moreover, the discouraging effect that these major exporting nations will have on other states' acceptance of the ATT only further reduces the likelihood that the treaty will be able to successfully prevent human rights abuses.

Thus, while there is compelling logic behind the treaty, there is no guarantee that it will in fact be successful. Unfortunately, as long as the world's major arms exporters do not ratify and implement the ATT, violent human rights abuses, due to the international arms trade, are likely to continue.

References

Arms Trade Treaty, 2 April 2013. http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

Image Credits

Page 5: Arms Trade Treaty, 2 April 2013. http://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2013/04/20130410%2012-01%20PM/Ch_XXVI_08.pdf#page=21

voirdire


THE PRECARIOUS CONDITION OF

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS Sahar Rostami The evolution of societies worldwide – from their more primitive beginnings to their present condition as advanced civilizations – has been characterized by a continuous struggle to institute egalitarianism and just principles. Although this has been a gradual process, humankind has made remarkable progress in their struggle to establish freedom as a recognized and respected right in every society. Atrocities such as genocide, unlawful persecution, and torture, have become less acceptable forms of asserting authoritarian power. Nevertheless, inhumane practices persist in several cultures and communities across the globe, predominantly in nations led by malicious leaders that utilize oppression to “effectively” rule their citizenry. The most tyrannical regimes in the world are characterized by the extensive amounts of repression their citizens face while being denied basic human rights and freedoms. They are subjected to maltreatment on a daily basis, and are granted limited political and social input (Tait 2009). As evident by their display of all the above qualities, the extremist nations of the Middle East, particularly Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan are prominent examples of governments that rely and thrive on the oppression of their populace. Such regimes prioritize their self-interests above the wellbeing of their people, and disregard the effects that their decisions may have on their citizens’ quality of life.

The Suppression of Women

It is an unfortunate reality that countless women in democratic nations worldwide continue to face discriminatory and inequitable treatment (e.g. harassment in the workplace) (Klausen 2005). This reality is also encountered, and often more intensely, by individuals living under oppressive regimes, where they face immense maltreatment in the form of both physical and verbal abuse. Women, in particular, are especially vulnerable to being ostracized, and are repeatedly denied access to fundamental human rights, including their freedom of speech, and the

right to take part in governmental affairs (e.g. voting or running for office).

To highlight an extreme example of the dictatorial nations of the Middle East, in Afghanistan, women are prohibited from working, receiving an education, seeking medical attention from a male doctor, and sometimes even leaving their own homes. This is largely due to the influence of the Taliban, a political movement that officially controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 while perpetuating and promoting brutality against women (Howlett 2001).

The maltreatment of women may pose a global implication. Excluding women from achieving an education, and regarding them as inferior to their male counterparts may render it extremely difficult to control the populations of repressive nations similar to Afghanistan. As demonstrated in Kerala, India, and many other impoverished nations in the world, individuals with higher degrees of education (and particularly those who are permitted to pursue an education) have fewer children than those who are limited in their opportunities. Furthermore, in nations such as Afghanistan, guardians of young girls consent to their marriages while still in their youth (Howlett 2001). This drastically increases the number of childbearing years these young women have to produce children and may contribute to the overpopulation in such countries. In turn, this generates further issues, including the inability to provide sufficient social services and food to an ever-increasing populace.

voirdire


Extremist Islamic nations often use religious fanaticism in order to promote malicious treatment of women as morally acceptable. Not only are women excluded from the working sector of these societies, they are also denied access to basic liberties that countless women possess in democratic nations. Women are commonly regarded as the property of male family members and their husbands, and are thereby treated callously. This treatment is exemplified by practices of “honour killings’’ and “death by stoning’’ as well as domestic violence against women, which is a prevalent phenomenon in many extremist Islamic countries (Holt 2003).

In Pakistan, honour killings – defined as a circumstance in which a male member of a family kills a female in order to preserve the family’s reputation – are in fact increasing (Holt 2003). In some cases, women suffer death at the hands of their family members by means of gunfire, strangulation, and at times electrocution (Holt 2003). These women are denied the right to defend themselves or protest any abuse they endure. Consequently, such women are helpless victims that are often punished severely for unfounded allegations that render them burned, beaten, or killed (Ward 2008). This cruel treatment violates several statutes of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, including those concerning degrading and unusual punishment, the right to equal recognition before the law and entitlement to impartial hearings, specifically articles 2,5,6,7,10, and 11 (Moaveni 2010). As for women that are accused of committing adultery, in Afghanistan and Iran, it is not unheard of to stone these individuals to death in full view of a public audience. Smaller stones are even commonly used in this process in order to prolong the suffering of the victim prior to moment of death (Moaveni 2010). Under Sharia law, commonly referred to as Islamic Law, women are frequently subjected to such gruesome punishments that are deemed as acceptable penalties for offences such as marital infidelity (Johnson 2010).

Sharia law is a compilation of moral principals taken from sacred texts and traditions found in the Qur’an and Hadith. These texts contain sacred statements regarding what beliefs “true” Muslims should observe (Johnson 2010). The spiritual leaders of Iran possess the power to interpret such doctrines,

as well as the responsibility of offering guidance to political parties based on policies they claim correspond with Sharia law.

In accordance with these values, women often maintain a severely inferior status to men, leaving them with few privileges in the legal system. (Moore 2006). These women are often unable to take sufficient action to appeal unjust rulings as their testimonies are seen to be of lesser value compared to those given by men (Moore 2006). Sharia traditions that repress women are endless and continue to include female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages and gender biased inheritance rules (Johnson 2010). Regrettably, these norms exclude women from maintaining political influence in their homelands, thereby depriving these societies of the valuable contributions it could receive from its educated female members.

The Violation of Civil Liberties

Just as female inequality is ongoing in nations founded on radical Islamic principles, hostility towards those who oppose or question the supremacy of their government is just as prevalent. Citizens, who retaliate against government rulings, whether through peaceful protests, or violent riots, are often unlawfully prosecuted. These individuals are unjustifiably detained, denied equitable trials, and are subsequently either tortured into submission or killed (Keddie and Yann 2006).

Cultural Exceptionalism is the notion that religious, political, social, economic, and cultural customs of a nation are of greater importance than universal human rights (Hassan 2007). These notions are accorded the utmost significance in these regimes. Following the 2009 election of Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an uprising ensued where protesters were assaulted and a young female bystander was shot and killed. This event illustrated the brutality used against the public and demonstrated the government’s political and religious objectives to silence “nonbelievers”. To some, this was regarded as a method in which such nations attempt to create homogenous societies (Tait 2009).

Iran, the world’s only theocracy, has become a target for controversy from NGOs to IGOs concerned with upholding human rights (e.g. Amnesty

voirdire


International, and the United Nations) for commonly employing highly oppressive practices (Wattie 2007). Among these include publicly beating citizens for expressing their opinions in public places, executing offers under 18 years of age, using torture in order to obtain forced confessions, and performing arbitrary arrests. These activities are extensively documented in Iran and are subsequently in breach of articles 9, 18, 20 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Keddie and Yann 2006). Regrettably, citizens that attend peaceful demonstrations and exercise their right to freedom of speech are deterred by Iranian security through their use of batons, tear gas, and ultimately deadly force (Klausen 2005). According to surveys conducted by the non-profit organization Freedom House, which advocates democracy across

the globe, the large majority of Islamic Middle Eastern nations do not permit their citizens to exercise civil liberties or political freedom. These tyrannical governments have deemed all those who question their authority as enemies of the state and of Islam (Ebadi 2010).

Afghanistan partakes in similar atrocities against humanity and in doing so victimizes children and abuses their fundamental human rights (Howlett 2001). Children are forced to endure sexual abuse, human trafficking, as well as being employed in armed conflict, and child labour (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2010). Such compulsory labour condemns children to a life devoid of basic

freedoms. It contradicts Afghanistan’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that was adopted by the United Nations in 1989 (Howlett 2001). Despite this document’s intended efforts to protect the rights of children and prevent their abuse, Afghanistan persists in its inhumane activities, along with other extremist Middle Eastern nations.

Censorship and the Misuse of Media

The majority of democratic regions of the globe often take pride in the fact that their citizens are permitted to have access to a wide range of information with little being hidden from them. However, several nations are less fortunate in this regard. The predominant manner in which Islamic regimes control the information their citizens are privy to is through “silencing the media” or in other words, censoring the reports of journalists (Ebadi 2010).

In Pakistan, such a situation occurred when the press declared that their efforts to provide live documentation of the 2007 election was stifled by the state media. They were warned that failure to comply with these regulations would result in heavy fines or three years of imprisonment (Hassan 2007).

Furthermore, Iran exemplifies the Islamic Middle East’s notorious record for imprisoning journalists and restricting freedom of the press. The case of Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian journalist, demonstrates the extreme measures a nation like Iran is willing to adopt in order to enforce its strict censorship regulations. Kazemi was reportedly raped, tortured and beaten to death while in Iranian custody just shortly after being arrested for taking photos outside a prison in Tehran in 2003 (Wattie 2007). This incident was in fact a key factor in Canada’s decision to issue economic sanctions against Iran. This sanction prohibited the export of materials that could be used for nuclear or military development (Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 2010).

Similarly in Afghanistan, individuals employed in television, radio, and print media must take extreme caution in selecting the material they reveal to the public. For expressing their opinions that contradicted the ideologies of their ruling regime, individuals have been subject to assault and incarceration. This often results in the confiscation of their property. In 2005, Afghanistan banned Western


Western music from all state radios and have interfered with the publication of books that discuss topics that conflict with Islamic beliefs (Ebadi 2010).

There is a common misconception that Canadians and other citizens of the world that live in truly democratic societies are unaffected by the events and atrocities that occur in repressive nations. However, the instability that is caused by self-serving governments that generate unrest, social uprisings, and even armed conflict, incur profound repercussions on a global scale. Such instability has resulted in economic volatility such as fluctuations in global gas prices that are experienced even in the Western hemisphere. If given sufficient political influence, organizations such as the United Nations and the Human Rights Watch may be able to encourage the preservation and worldwide adoption of the most basic international human rights. Even the most oppressed and unjustly governed nations of the world can be directed toward more equitable conduct. If the international community adopts appropriate measures by utilizing instruments such as mass media, and economic sanctions to weaken the power base of dictatorial leaders, it may stimulate gradual and lasting change.

References Ebadi, Shirin. “Censorship in Iran and around the Globe.” Azad Tribune 20 March 2010. http://www.azadtribune.org/en/content/censorship-iran-and-around-globe.

Dareini, Ali A. “Iran Protest: Hundreds of Thousands March, Tear Gas Fired.” The Huffington Post 14 February 2011.

“2009 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan.” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 11 March 2010. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136084.htm.

Hasan, Seyed S. “Pakistan ‘censorship’ criticized.” BBC News 12 December 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7140060.stm.

Holt, Kate. “PAKISTAN: “Focus on honour killings.” Humanitarian News and Analysis 9 January 2003. http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=19247.

Howlett, Debbie. “Afghan women fight oppression.” USA Today 16 October 2001.

Johnson, Toni. “Governing Under Sharia.” Council on Foreign Relations 10 November 2010. http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

Keddie, Nikki R., and Yann Richard. Modern Iran. London: Yale University Press, 2006.

Klausen, Jytte. The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Maier, Robert. “Censorship in Afghanistan: Death to journalists.” Kabul Press 11 March 2010. http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article4789.

Moaveni, Azadeh. “Death By Stoning: Iran’s Internal Debate.” Time, July 2010. http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034

Moore, Charles. “What is sharia law?” The Telegraph 19 February 2006.

Tait, Robert. “How Neda Soltani became the face of Iran’s struggle.” The Guardian 22 June 2009.

Ward, Olivia. “Ten worst countries for women.” Toronto Star 8 March 2008.

Wattie, Chris. “Iran’s changing story.” CBC News 27 November 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/k

Image Credits

Page 7: "Gender Equality in the Holy Qur'an – In the Beginning Man and Woman Were Equal." The Muslim Times: A Blog to Foster Universal Brotherhood. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

Page 9: "THE DANGERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING." THE DANGERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

Page 10: "Worst Thing About Censorship by Madex103 on DeviantART." Worst Thing About Censorship by Madex103 on DeviantART. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

voirdire


WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LAW

SCHOOL APPLICATION PROCESS

INTERVIEW WITH GRAEME BLAKE Maria-Christina Christodoulou Applying to law school can be an intimidating process, especially considering how competitive it is to get in. Fortunately, I had the pleasure to chat with someone experienced in the field: Graeme Blake, an accomplished author and LSAT instructor. With application season right around the corner, I took this opportunity to ask him questions about the application process. His extensive knowledge of the application process is a valuable source for answering questions many of you may have, and the resources he offers provide prospective law school students with useful tools for maximizing their LSAT scores.

Considering his expertise on the LSAT, I asked Graeme a few questions about writing the LSAT more than once. He says that the best time to take a second LSAT is when you absolutely know that you can score higher, because you scored below your normal range, or you were continuing to make improvements up until test day. In Canada, if your score is high enough to get you into a particular school that you want, then it makes sense to stop and just use that one score. Otherwise, the time and effort you need to put into taking the test again may not be worth it. Canadian schools don’t tend to give merit scholarships. It is better to retake the LSAT in December, rather than February. That way, you can get the second score in before most schools have made their decision. In general, taking the test twice is standard. Moreover, Graeme explains that multiple LSAT scores are evaluated differently according to the school. Most schools will primarily use the highest score to make their decision, with all other scores being considered. However, it is important to note that most schools will wonder about a huge point difference between LSAT scores. In any case, Graeme suggests that taking the LSAT once and getting a high score is important.

The LSAT can be taken at four different times during the year: February, June, October, and December. Graeme emphasizes that the best time a student can take the test is when they can commit two to three months of intense studying toward it. That being said, a good time to take the test according to Graeme is June. This is because it gives you enough time to take the October test if you do not get the score you need, which means you will get your results in time to apply in November. Re-taking the test in

December runs the risk of law schools not receiving your updated score before they have already made a decision.

There are more components to a law school application other than just the LSAT, so I asked Graeme which factors are considered most important in the application process. In general, Graeme says that the LSAT and a student’s GPA are the most important. The reason for this is that schools try to make sure that once a student is accepted, they can actually succeed in law school. A good LSAT and GPA establish that you can handle the rigour of law school. Graeme goes on to suggest that other components of the application, such as extra-curricular activities, are considered insofar as to make sure that they do not make the applicant look bad. You want your application to be good all around, but good extracurriculars or references will not make up for a bad LSAT/GPA, except in extraordinary cases.

Reference letters are another component to law school applications, and each applicant should have at least two of them. An academic reference shows a reputable professional putting their reputation on the line by endorsing a particular student, and this allows admissions officers to have confidence in an applicant. This is why, according to Graeme, it is important to have good academic references. A good academic reference will need two things: for the reference to know the student well, and for the reference to have seen the student do good work. At a large school like the University of Toronto, it may be difficult to get to know a professor because of large class sizes. Graeme suggests making an effort to ask questions and go to office hours in order to get that good reference letter that you are looking for.

Most people stress about what it takes to have a good personal statement, and Graeme has some great ideas about this too. He says that the most important thing is to make sure that your personal statement is not boring. Admissions offices receives large numbers of personal statement and most tend to sound the same: “since I was young, law has been a passion of mine”, and so on and so forth. The standard that Graeme recommends when it comes to a good personal statement is to ask whether a person would want to read it if they randomly came across it. He has devised a test for this: asking a complete stranger to read it, and telling them that your friend asked you to edit their essay and you wanted a second opinion. Most people, Graeme says, will not insult your essay to your face, but if they think it is not your essay, you should be able to get an honest and unbiased answer out of them.


Graeme further explains that your personal statement should not just be a repetition of your extra-curricular activities. Rather, it should be a story about you, why you want to pursue law, and why law schools will benefit from having you as a student.

What about those of us who are worried about low first-year grades? Did we blow our chances of getting into law school because our first year grades are not stellar? Graeme says no. To my surprise, Graeme says that this is fairly common. He even goes so far as to say that some schools take an exponential growth in GPA into consideration. If there is a reason why the first year grades are lower, then it should be accounted for in the personal statement. However, despite being common, Graeme does add that your GPA will be higher if you take a year off before applying if your first year grades are not competitive. This is because some schools do not wait as long as others for fourth year grades, which means they may only see your first three years. Waiting the extra year gives schools that make decisions early an opportunity to see your GPA for your entire degree, as opposed to only two years of competitive grades.

To end the conversation, Graeme provided me with some general tips that he finds helpful for prospective law school students. First and foremost, he advocated visiting the school you are interested in. He says that students should go in to talk to people because you can find out a lot of stuff by talking to administrative officers. If you cannot visit, you should call and ask questions. Different schools have different answers for everything, and they are friendly and straightforward. Graeme recounted a story of him walking into the UofT Faculty of Law and having them take down his name and making notes. Who knows, they may even put in a good word for you! Lastly, Graeme asks students to remember that it is a human evaluating your application. It is important to keep this in mind and to make sure your application is appealing to a human. It will be read, and it will be considered just like all the others, so make sure you make the most of it.

Graeme is an LSAT instructor based out of Montreal who also helps people apply to law school. He offers Skype tutoring for those of us outside of Montreal. He has written a series of books currently selling on Amazon.com called Hacking the LSAT, and he is generous enough to post free LSAT explanations on his website

http://lsathacks.com

THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SYRIA

Karishma Prasanna

For the better part of two years, the Syrian civil war headlined newspapers worldwide and continues to be the center of many heated political debates. Dissatisfied with their local government and inspired by the regional ‘Arab Spring’, Syrians took to public rallies and demonstrations to stress the need for political reformation. Conflicts between the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad and The Opposition – an internationally recognized coalition, and the Free Syrian Army – a radical armed group, ignited civil uprising. That which began as peaceful protests soon sparked the unforgettable civilian bloodbaths and a full-fledged civil war, raising the death toll to over one hundred thousand and 2 million refugees.1

The internal war has erupted in mass human rights violations triggering the murders, rapes, kidnappings and torturing of Syrian civilians. Despite the rising death toll, what really shocked the rest of the world was the chemical attack in the city of Damascus on August 21, 2013. Using surface-to-surface rockets through the streets of a mainly civilian populated area, al-Assad sanctioned the release of a deadly chemical Sarin – an odourless and colourless toxin that severely damages the body’s nervous and respiratory systems. According to the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, 502 citizens have been killed, and thousands have been affected.2 Despite the global society outrage, a plan of action could not be reached.

A girl wounded amidst the Civil Attacks


Historically, the use of lethal and toxic chemical agents in warfare was used to contaminate and kill the opposition and civilians caught in the crossfire. World War I was known as the ‘Chemist's War’ because of deadly gases used during warfare.3 Post war in 1925, in efforts to eliminate the use of chemical weaponry, the League of Nations developed the Geneva Convention, which reinforced this cause. Unfortunately, this did little to prevent countries from using chemical and biological warfare methods during World War II and the Cold War, where many countries stockpiled vast amounts of chemical weapons. Additionally, in 1993 the Chemical Weapons Convention decreed it illegal to produce, store, and use chemical weapons. Although Syria is not one of the 189 countries that have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, Syria signed the Geneva Convention in 1953, and its amendment Protocol I in 1983.4

Many around the world are demanding the International Criminal Court (ICC) to interfere and rebuke al-Assad for his actions. However, as Syria has yet to ratify the Rome Statue (the document that establishes the ICC), the ICC holds no jurisdiction in the country. In order for the ICC to intervene, the United Nations (UN) must provide a referral. In spite of 64 countries insisting on ICC intervention, the UN has not done so due to the divide in the UN Security Council, as Russia and China remain against intervention.5

The world was uncertain about the next steps that need to be taken against al-Assad’s attacks. American President, Barack Obama, sought targeted air strikes as a solution to rid Syria of chemical weapons and impede al-Assad’s tyranny, yet he faced strong opposition within the United States. Other countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the European Union, all voiced their criticisms but affirmed that military action against al-Assad must coincide with the United Nations Security Council’s approval.6 These efforts remained impeded by Russia and China’s refusal.

As a result of the talks between the United States and Russia’s governments, the two countries generated a preliminary agreement stating that Syria will relinquish its chemical weapons supply by 2014 and will allow unrestricted access to UN inspectors.

This agreement was followed by the unanimous passing of the Unites Nations Security Council’s proposed resolution along with the endorsement of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that restated these goals for Syria. In accordance with Chapter VII of the Unites Nations Charter, the consequences for Syria’s failure to comply will grant the United Nations the rights to take military or other forms of action in order to maintain peace.7

This is the most opportune time for the UN to refer Syria to the ICC and bring both al-Assad and the opposition under international law for the crimes they have committed. The United Nations should consider implementing stricter sanctions and taking a more direct and vehement role in reprimanding both al-Assad and the opposition for their mistakes.8 Although this does not end the conflict in Syria nor the on-going human rights violations, this resolution is the first and foremost step taken in efforts to end the Syrian civil war, as well as to eliminate the use of chemical weapons on a global scale.

References

1. News, CBC. "Syria's Civil War: Key Facts, Important Players - CBCNews.ca." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

2. "Syria Chemical Attack: What We Know." BBC News. BBC, 24 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

3. Jacobs, Sharon. "Chemical Warfare From Rome to Syria." National Geographic. N.p., 22 Aug. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

4. Attacks On Ghouta. Rep. Human Rights Watch, Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

5. "UN Security Council: Seize Chance for Justice in Syria | Human Rights Watch." UN Security Council: Seize Chance for Justice in Syria | Human Rights Watch. N.p., 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

6. "Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack a War Crime, Says EU." The Guardian. N.p., 7 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

7. "UN Security Council Agrees to Rid Syria of Chemical Weapons, Endorses Peace Process." UN News Centre. UN, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

8. "UN: Seize Syria Chemical Deal Momentum | Human Rights Watch." UN: Seize Syria Chemical Deal Momentum | Human Rights Watch. N.p., 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

Image Credits

Page 12: "Chemical Attacks in Syria." Joel C Rosenbergs Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.


THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION

AGAINST TORTURE

Jenny Du

The United Nations’ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights resolution with the goal of preventing various forms of inhumane treatment around the world. Although torture has traditionally been prohibited in all human rights treaties, as well as in the 1949 Geneva Conventions on humanitarian law in armed conflict, previous international agreements have continually failed to prevent torturous acts. Thus, when Amnesty International’s campaign against torture resulted in international outrage, UNCAT was put into place to fill the voids left by existing treaties [1].

UNCAT was adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, before coming into force on June 26, 1987, in accordance with Article 27.1 of the convention. Existing treaty bodies did not adequately deal with the issue of torture outside the framework of international armed conflict, and failed to facilitate the investigation of systematic practices of torture. In order for the convention to be more effective than earlier treaty bodies, doctrines from international

criminal law were imported to guarantee that there would be “no safe haven for torturers” [2].

The convention contains a preamble and 33 articles (divided into three sections), resembling the structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Section I contains detailed definitions and establishes effective measures for torture prevention, Section II governs the reporting and monitoring of the convention, and Section III governs ratification, entry into force, and amendment [3]. As of September 2013, there were 154 state parties to the convention, which mandates all signatories to carry out effective torture-prevention measures within their borders, and forbids states to transport people to countries where there is a possibility of being tortured. The implementation of the convention is monitored by the Committee against Torture (CAT), a United Nations commission comprised of human rights specialists. All state parties must submit a report to CAT within the first year of joining the convention, after which they are obliged to submit an updated report every four years [4]. Reports are examined by CAT and feedback is given to each state party.

The definition of torture from the United Nations Convention against Torture (Article 1.1) reads as follows: For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or

SIGNED AND RATIFIED

SIGNED BUT NOT RATIFIED

NOT SIGNED


suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Based on this definition, torture is framed as the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental suffering with the consent of state authority. Torture is used as an instrument of punishment to obtain information, frighten a population into compliance, or take vengeance on a third party. Physical forms of torture include beating, electric shock, suffocation, burning, and sexual assault, while psychological forms include threats, isolation, witnessing torture, and humiliation [5]. Victims can be anyone – adults or children, those who are religious and those who are not, intellectuals or the uneducated – though the most common targets are politicians, human rights activists, union leaders, journalists, prisoners, members of ethnic minorities, and healthcare professionals [6]. Often, these groups become victims because action taken against them acts as a warning to all who stand in political, religious, or social opposition to the authority of perpetrators, including the police, the military, or prison officers [7].

Upon ratification of UNCAT, governments are obliged to assert responsibility for torture prevention, and make amends with victims. However, controlling these practices requires support and cooperation from governments all around the world. Each state must take part in the struggle against stopping practices of torture within its boundaries. While this convention has been ratified, it is only a compulsory first step, and the fight to stop torture still continues.

The timing of states’ commitment to the United Nations Convention of Torture, and the duration of time between the signing and ratification processes, varies greatly among signatories. Canada, one of the first countries to sign the convention, did so on

August 23, 1985 and ratified the agreement on June 24, 1987. The United States of America signed on April 18, 1988, and ratified on October 21, 1994. Some countries, such as India, have signed (October 14, 1997) but have not yet ratified the convention. The newest ratifying party, Guinea-Bissau, signed the agreement on September 12, 2000 but did not ratify the convention until September 24, 2013 [8].

According to Amnesty International, cases of torture were documented in 149 countries during 2000 [9]. The highest numbers of reported cases came from the following six countries: Bangladesh, Iran, Peru, Syria, Turkey, and Uganda [10]. Organizations such as the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims are strong advocates for global cooperation that targets universal ratification of the Convention [11]. People who live in countries which have not yet ratified the convention must play the critical role of lobbying within their communities to get the message across to people around them. Those who live in states that have already ratified the convention can also make contributions in the form of educating others and raising awareness of UNCAT’s importance. Currently, in honor of the United Nations Convention against Torture, June 26th has become recognized as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. This is a global concern, and therefore requires a global effort.

References

[1][2] Rodley, Sir Nigel. 2009. The United Nations Convention Against Torture: A Commentary. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(4):1143-1146. The John Hopkins University Press.

[3] United Nations Human Rights. 1987. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). Article 1.1.

[4][8] United Nations Human Rights. 1996-2013. Human Rights Bodies: Committee Against Torture. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR).

[5][6][7][11] IRCT. 2010. Strengthening capacity, influencing policy and sharing knowledge in support of torture rehabilitation, prevention and justice. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims.

[9] Amnesty International Report. 2001. Amnesty International Publications. Oxford Press.

[10] Moisandera, Pia A. & Edston, Erik. 2003. Torture and its sequel—a comparison between victims from six countries. Forensic Science International, 137(2-3):133-140.

Image Credits

Page 14: "United Nations Convention against Torture." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF MARIA-CHRISTINA CHRISTODOULOU

ASSISTANT EDITORS ALEXANDRIA MATIC

NINA MODARESI

LAYOUT DESIGNER TIRTHAK PATEL

WRITERS ALI AUN SYED

JENNY DU KARISHMA PRASANNA

MALCOLM PECK-MCQUEEN SAHAR ROSTAMI SARAH KARIM

TIFFANY HUYNH

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRE-LAW SOCIETY

voir dire 2014 issue 1

Documents

field of law

oldlaw voirdire page

academic year

law school application

michaela santos president

academic quarterly basis

international scale

legal issues