A U.S. jury has awarded $42 million in damages to three former detainees of Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison, holding CACI, a military contractor based in Virginia, responsible for its role in their torture and mistreatment two decades ago. The ruling, delivered by an eight-person jury, came after a previous trial earlier this year failed to reach a verdict regarding CACI’s liability for the actions of its civilian interrogators, who worked alongside the U.S. Army at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and 2004.
The jury’s decision saw plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili, and Asa’ad Al-Zubae awarded $3 million each in compensatory damages, alongside $11 million each in punitive damages. These three former detainees testified about the brutal treatment they endured at the hands of military personnel and contractors at the facility. Their accounts included allegations of beatings, sexual abuse, forced nudity, and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.
While the plaintiffs did not claim that CACI’s interrogators were directly responsible for the abuse, they argued that the company was complicit in the mistreatment. They contended that CACI’s interrogators worked in conjunction with military police officers to “soften up” detainees for questioning by using harsh and degrading tactics.
In response to the verdict, CACI expressed disappointment and announced plans to appeal the decision. The company issued a statement asserting that it had been wrongfully connected with the actions of military personnel at Abu Ghraib. “For nearly two decades, CACI has been wrongly subjected to long-term, negative affiliation with the unfortunate and reckless actions of a group of military police at Abu Ghraib prison from 2003 through 2004,” the company stated. It emphasized that none of its employees had been criminally, civilly, or administratively charged in connection with the events at the prison.
Baher Azmy, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented the plaintiffs, hailed the verdict as an important step toward justice and accountability. Azmy praised the courage of the plaintiffs for their resilience and said that the $42 million awarded fully matched the amount sought by the plaintiffs. It also surpassed the $31 million CACI had reportedly been paid for providing interrogators to the U.S. military at the prison.
“Today is a big day for me and for justice,” said Al-Ejaili, a journalist who was one of the plaintiffs. “I’ve waited a long time for this day. This victory isn’t only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation. This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse.” Al-Ejaili traveled to the U.S. for both trials, where he testified in person, while the other two plaintiffs, Al Shimari and Al-Zubae, gave their testimony remotely from Iraq.
This trial and the subsequent retrial marked the first time in two decades that a U.S. jury heard the claims of survivors of Abu Ghraib, following the release of disturbing photos in 2004 that showed U.S. soldiers abusing detainees at the facility. Although none of the three plaintiffs featured in those infamous images, their testimonies revealed disturbing similarities to the treatment depicted in the photos.
Al Shimari described severe abuse, including sexual assaults, beatings, and being subjected to electric shocks during his two months at the prison. He also recounted being dragged around by a rope tied to his neck. Al-Ejaili, for his part, testified about being forced into stress positions that caused him to vomit black liquid. He also said he was deprived of sleep, forced to wear women’s underwear, and threatened with dogs during his time at the prison.
CACI, however, defended itself, claiming that its employees were not responsible for the detainees’ abuse. The company argued that its contractors had limited involvement with the plaintiffs and questioned parts of the plaintiffs’ testimony, suggesting that some of their claims were contradicted by military records. CACI’s defense rested on the argument that any liability for the detainees’ mistreatment rested solely with the U.S. government.
Throughout the trial and retrial, the jury struggled to determine whether CACI or the U.S. Army should bear responsibility for the misconduct committed by CACI’s interrogators. In the first trial, which ended in a mistrial with a hung jury, multiple jurors indicated they favored holding CACI accountable. CACI, as part of its defense, invoked the “borrowed servants” doctrine, asserting that it should not be held liable for its employees’ actions if those employees were under the direction of the Army. In contrast, the plaintiffs’ legal team argued that CACI should be held accountable for its own employees’ actions, pointing to provisions in CACI’s contract with the Army that made the company responsible for overseeing its personnel.
The lawsuit was initially filed in 2008, but it faced numerous delays due to legal challenges from CACI. The plaintiffs’ legal team presented evidence in the form of reports from two retired Army generals, who documented the abuse at Abu Ghraib and concluded that several CACI interrogators were complicit in the mistreatment. These reports included allegations that Steven Stefanowicz, one of the interrogators, lied about his actions and likely instructed soldiers to mistreat detainees, including using dogs to intimidate them during interrogations.
Stefanowicz testified on behalf of CACI through a recorded video deposition, where he denied any wrongdoing. Meanwhile, CACI presented a separate report that claimed its contractors had complied with military procedures and had performed their duties satisfactorily.
The case has drawn significant attention, not only due to the high-profile nature of the abuse at Abu Ghraib but also because it marks a rare instance of a corporate entity being held accountable for complicity in human rights violations. As the case moves forward, CACI’s appeal will likely be closely watched, given its potential implications for future lawsuits involving private contractors working with the U.S. military.
