This late 2003 photo shows an unidentified detainee standing on a box with a bag on his head and wires attached to him in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. File/AP

Three survivors of the torture at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, which shocked the world in 2004 when pictures of American guards and harried prisoners became public, are seeking justice after all these years. The trial is set to open on Monday in the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, and it is presided over by Judge Leonie Brinkema.

The three survivors, including a former Al Jazeera journalist, spent two months to a year in Abu Ghraib and they were released without even a chargesheet being framed against them. They have brought charges against private contractor CACI, which had supplied interrogators to the prison, and the survivors’ argument that CACI was responsible for the torture. The case of the survivors is being led by Baher Azmy of the Centre for Constitutional Rights.

The survivors had to struggle since 2008 to bring their case to the trial stage because the courts had thrown out their plea based on the CACI plea that it does not have any responsibility because it was employed by the US military. The US Supreme Court turned down the CACI argument in 2021, and sent it to the Alexandria court for trial.

The legal issues involved in the case are of deep significance. An argument put forward by the CACI was that the US enjoys immunity from torture cases, and that the CACI enjoys derivative immunity because it was in the employ of the government. Judge Brinkema came up with the unique ruling that that US government cannot claim immunity when it comes to allegations that violate international norms like torturing prisoners, and therefore CACI cannot claim derivative immunity.

Though the case is between CACI and the three Abu Ghraib survivors, the US government lawyers would be present, and they would object if the CACI deposition would contain top national secrets. Both the survivors and the CACI have blamed the US government for preventing evidence being presented on grounds of sensitive information. Judge Brinkema warned that the government when it objects should be defending a genuinely top secret. Jason Lynch, the government lawyer, assured Brinkema, “We’re trying to stay out of the way as much as possibly can.” The judge said that the charges brought against the three survivors would not matter because the issue is torture by prison authorities. She observed, “Even if they were terrorists it doesn’t excuse the conduct that is alleged here.”

The case evidence is quite clear that there was torture and treatment of prisoners of an unacceptable kind. There was military inquiry when the scandalous information through photographs became public. The inquiry led by General Antonio Taguba concluded that at least one CACI interrogator was involved in the torture process. Taguba is expected to depose during the trial. Jurors will also hear testimony of soldiers who were involved directly in acts of torture and who were convicted by a military court.

The testimony of former staff sergeant Ivan Frederick, who was sentenced to eight years of confinement, will be played to the jury. He has refused to attend the trial voluntarily. The question is likely to be asked whether the trial and the possible conviction of CACI would be of any solace to the three victims of torture. It surely cannot heal the scars of the torture they carry in the mind and in their bodies, and the sense of shame they would have experienced.

But it would serve as a strong reminder to the people of America, to its politicians, that America  cannot uphold democracy if it indulges in heinous practices usually associated with totalitarian states where there was no rule of law. The American legal system has enabled this shameful incident to be brought to public attention through the trial.