Jane Doe I, Jane Doe II, Jane Doe III v. Emmanuel Constant, a/k/a Toto Constant

Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States
Case number	08-4827-cv
Decision title	Summary Order
Decision date	1 December 2009
Parties	Jane Doe I Jane Doe II Jane Doe III Emmanuel Constant, a/k/a Toto Constant
Other names	Doe v. Constant
Categories	Crimes against humanity, Torture
Keywords	Crimes against humanity; Haiti; rape; torture; Raboteau Massacre
Links	Summary Order affirming the judgment of the District Court Against Constant

Summary

Emmanuel Constant was born on 27 October 1956 in Haiti. He was the founder of the Revolutionary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), a death squad that terrorised supporters of Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide who was overthrown in September 1991. Members of the FRAPH killed, put in prison, and abused supporters of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during the military regime that ruled Haiti between September 1991 and October 1994. Constant, as the leader of FRAPH, was convicted and found guilty for crimes committed during the military regime. He was ordered to pay $19 million in damages to three women who survived the crimes committed under Constant’s control.

Procedural history

In 2001, Emmanuel Constant was convicted in absentia by a Haitian court and was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the Raboteau Massacre that took place between 18 and 22 April 1994.

On 22 December 2004, the Center for Justice and Accountability filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Constant.

On 16 August 2006, the Court found Constant guilty of torture, crimes against humanity and the systematic use of violence against women (including rape in 2006), and was ordered to pay $19 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The ruling was the first one ever to find anyone responsible for the state-sponsored campaign of rape in Haiti.

On 19 August 2008, Constant appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On 28 October 2008, Constant was sentenced to 12 to 37 years in prison for his role in a criminal mortgage fraud scheme in New York after being found guilty on all six felony counts against him in a July 2008 trial.

See more court documents:

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

Affidavit in Support of Motion for Judgment by Default, 7 December 2005;
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Judgment by Default, 7 December 2005;
Amended Notice of Motion for Judgment by Default, 7 December 2005;
Amended Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Judgment by Default, 7 December 2005;
Transcript of Proceedings held before Judge Stein, 21 December 2005;
Memorandum of Law Regarding Subject Matter Jurisdiction, 31 January 2006;
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment by Default, 16 August 2006;
Exhibit A: Letter from Judge Stein, 16 August 2006;
Statement of Interest of the United States, 28 September 2006;
Exhibit B: Letter of the U.S. Department of State’s Legal Advisor dated 9/27/06, 28 September 2006;
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 24 October 2006;
Motion For Relief of a Void Judgment Pursuant To Rule 60[b][4] of The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11 October 2007;
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Relief of a Void Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 26 October 2007;
Memorandum of Law in Support of a Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Relief of a Void Judgement, 7 January 2008;
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Second Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Relief of a Void Judgment, 21 April 2008;
Order Denying Rule 60(b)(4) Motion, 30 July 2008.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees, 24 April 2009;
Orders Denying Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Rehearing with Appendix and Motion to Receive a Transcript of Oral Argument Without Charge, 5 January 2010.

Related developments

In February 2010, Constant's petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc was denied.

On 4 October 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court also denied Constant's petition for a writ of certiorari.

Legally relevant facts

In September 1991, President of Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown by the Haitian Armed Forces. Between the end of September 1991 and October 1994, Haiti was under a de facto military regime. An estimated number of 4,000 civilians were killed and several hundred thousand were tortured, imprisoned, or forced into exile by the Haitian Armed Forces and Revolutionary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), a paramilitary organisation that terrorised supporters of President Aristide.

Constant was the founder and former leader of FRAPH.
In 1993 and 1994, FRAPH committed extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arson, torture, rape, and other forms of sexual violence against women.

In October 1994, the government of President Aristide was brought back to power. A warrant for Constant’s arrest was issued subsequently, however, he had fled Haiti and found a safe haven in the U.S.

In September 1995, the U.S. issued an order for Constant’s extradition. The order has never been executed.

Core legal questions

Did the District Court have subject matter jurisdiction to enter a default judgment?

Did the District Court have personal jurisdiction to enter a default judgment?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 (Title 28 U.S. Code, Chapter 85, Section 1350)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2006, United States:

Rule 4(a)(1)(B) - Summons
Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) - Relief From Judgment or Order

Court's holding and analysis

Τhe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Court dismissed the claim that the District Court’s judgment is void because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a default judgment. The Court held that the District Court had jurisdiction under both the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA/ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) because plaintiffs had presented ‘sufficient facts to demonstrate that Constant acted under color of law for purposes of the ATS, they also satisfied this requirement under the TVPA’ (p. 6).

The Court also rejected the lack of personal jurisdiction claim. It ruled that service of the summons is sufficient to grant personal jurisdiction to the court irrespective of clerical defects in the summons (pp. 6-7).

The Court also rejected Constant’s attempt to argue that he could not defend himself because of his incarceration in a prison in New York for mortgage fraud, holding that he was not in prison at the time he was served with the lawsuit (pp. 7-8).

Further analysis

N. G. PicartPerez, ‘Haiti: In the Pursuit of Peace, Justice, and Healing’, Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, 2012, Vol. 81(1), pp. 227-243.

Instruments cited

Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, United States.

Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, United States.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 2006, United States.

Related cases

District Court for the Eastern District of California (United States), J. Doe v. Alvaro Rafael Saravia et al., Case No. CIV-F-03-6249 OWW LJO, Judgment, 19 November 2004.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division (United States), Marie Jeanne Jean et al. v. Carl Dorélien, Case No. 03-20161-CIV-KING/GARBER, Final Judgment, 16 August 2007.