U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–355 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–196

EXAMINING THE PREVALENCE OF AND SOLUTIONS

TO STOPPING VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIAN WOMEN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 27, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

SARA G. GARLAND, Majority Staff Director 

DAVID A. MULLON JR. Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on September 27, 2007 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Senator Johnson ................................................................................ 5

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 67 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70

WITNESSES

Arriaga, Alexandria, Director of Government Relations, Amnesty International U.S.A. ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Artichoker, Karen, Director, Sacred Circle National Resource Center to End 

Violence Against Native Women ......................................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Kanji, Riyaz A., Kanji and Katzen ......................................................................... 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Rozell, Jami, Educator, Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma .......................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Young, Tammy M., Director, Alaska Native Women’s Coalition ......................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX

Alaska Justice Forum (Vol. 24, No. 1) ................................................................... 219

Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission 2006 Initial Report 

and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 88

Asetoyer, Charon, M.A. (Comanche Nation); Executive Director, Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center, prepared statement ......... 73

Parisien, Helen, Shelter Manager, Bridges Against Domestic Violence, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 77

Sahneyah, Dorma L., Chief Prosecutor, Hopi Tribe, prepared statement .......... 74

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), prepared statement 79

U.S. Department of Justice, prepared statement .................................................. 81

(1)

EXAMINING THE PREVALENCE OF AND

SOLUTIONS TO STOPPING VIOLENCE 

AGAINST INDIAN WOMEN 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. With respect to the hearing that we are holding 

today, let me make a couple of comments, because I think it is important to describe what it is we are doing and why. 

Today the Committee will hold its third hearing to take a look 

at tribal justice systems and the growing problem of violent crime 

in Indian Country. The first two hearings showed that we are facing a severe public safety crisis in Indian Country. And today’s 

hearing will focus specifically on the issue of sexual violence 

against Indian women. 

An April 2007 Amnesty International report found that 34 percent of Indian women will be raped or sexually assaulted during 

their lifetimes. I commend Amnesty International for bringing 

added public attention to what I think is a very serious issue. However, as the report notes, this is unfortunately not breaking news 

to women who live on Indian reservations. The problem has existed 

for a decade and more. 

The title of the Amnesty report is ‘‘Maze of Injustice,’’ and it refers to the complexity and the maze of jurisdiction that exists on 

Indian lands today. However, this was not always the case. Indian 

tribes historically exercised authority over anyone who entered 

their lands, regardless of whether the perpetrator was Indian or 

not. 

The confusion that exists today is the result of outdated Federal 

laws and court decisions that were passed during a time when paternalism was this Nation’s Indian policy. These laws directly conflict with the policy of Indian self-determination and they strike at 

the very heart of tribal sovereignty. As a result, victims in Indian 

Country rely solely on the Federal Government, specifically the 

FBI and the United States Attorneys Offices, to investigate and 

2

prosecute sexual violence in Indian Country. It is clear to me that 

the Federal Government is not meeting its obligation. 

For a number of reasons, many victims of sexual violence are unable to bring their attackers to justice or even gain access to the 

legal system. And that is intolerable. In North and South Dakota, 

we have four police officers patrolling 2.3 million acres on the 

Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Survivors of violent crimes report waiting hours, in some cases days for a police car to respond 

to an emergency request. When the police do show up, the survivors sometimes have to travel hundreds of miles to receive treatment. In the end, too many women see their cases thrown out of 

court and worse, they often never get an explanation from the officer or the prosecutor. 

This year, NPR ran a series of stories on violence against women 

in Indian Country. One involved cases on the Standing Rock Reservation. The title of the report was ‘‘Rape Cases on Indian Lands 

Go Uninvestigated.’’ In the report, a retired BIA police officer described the grim situation. He said, ‘‘We all knew they only take 

the cases with a confession. We were forced to triage our cases.’’

When this type of violence becomes so commonplace the police 

have to triage rape cases, something is dreadfully wrong and someone needs to take action. Today, we are going to hear first-hand 

from a courageous young woman about her struggle to obtain justice under this broken system. I hope her story will motivate all of 

those of us in Congress to fix a system that desperately needs fixing. 

The fallout from these heinous crimes is often devastating to the 

victim. We have seen these crimes against Indian women have a 

demoralizing and long-term effect on the fabric of an entire community. Tribal leaders have in some cases described reservations as a 

war zone. There is a growing perception among criminals that Indian lands are a safe haven. I read a report this week of a U.S. 

Attorney from Colorado, Troy Eid, who was involved in stopping a 

drug organization that was set up on an Indian reservation. He 

said ‘‘Indian reservations are being used as business development 

tools by large drug trafficking organizations.’’ It confirms our earlier reports that Indian Country is a target. 

Yesterday, I met with Judge Mukasey, the President’s nominee 

for Attorney General. I met with him specifically, I am going to 

support his nomination, I am going to vote for him, but I asked to 

meet with him specifically because I wanted to review with him the 

circumstances on Indian reservations and the difficulties we have 

in connecting adequate law enforcement between State, local and 

Federal law enforcement authorities. I wanted his commitment 

that he was going to understand this and work hard to try to correct it. 

So there is much to be concerned about. And I also recognize it 

is very sensitive to be talking about this. I don’t want in some pejorative way to suggest that there is something dreadfully wrong 

with a group of people in this Country. That is not the case. Indian 

reservations in many cases are remote areas, they have inadequate 

law enforcement, in many cases very substantial poverty and other 

issues. And they have too often, I think, been targeted by criminal 

enterprises, targeted by drug dealers. We now see report after reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
3

port that there are very serious sexual crimes and crimes of violence committed, particularly against women, not exclusively, but 

particularly against Indian women, that often go unreported and in 

many cases go unpunished. And there is something wrong with 

that and we intend to find ways to fix it. 

Senator Murkowski? 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate a 

great deal, in fact, that the Committee is holding this hearing this 

morning. It is a very important topic, probably one of the most serious problems facing our Indian and Alaska Native communities, 

and this is the violence against women. 

I want to welcome all of the witnesses, but particularly Ms. 

Tammy Young, who has made a long trip back from Alaska to testify before the Committee today. 

Mr. Chairman, you know that we had scheduled a field hearing 

in Alaska in June to discuss the Amnesty International report on 

sexual violence. We canceled that hearing at the very last minute 

out of respect for the passing of our colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. I know it was certainly one of Senator Thomas’ priorities to improve law enforcement in Indian Country and in part because of 

the violence against women and children in our Indian communities. So this Committee taking up this issue today again is certainly most timely. 

As so many are aware, Alaska received national and even global 

attention because of the Amnesty report. And while I have heard 

from members of the Alaska Native community expressing concerns about what they saw and read in the Amnesty report, I view 

this report as a wake-up call that the Federal Government has not 

been listening carefully enough to the advocates for our Native 

women who experience these despicable acts of violence. And I am 

deeply troubled when I hear that the Amnesty report was not 

news, just as you have indicated in your comments. 

No one should have to face domestic violence or sexual assault. 

And yet our Native women are at least two and a half times more 

likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than their non-Native counterparts. And in too many places, they have nowhere to turn, absolutely nowhere to turn, no one to go to. I am very troubled when 

I see the faces, listen to the stories, very heart-breaking stories of 

these women who have experienced the most appalling of assaults, 

and understanding the obstacles that they face. But I am also very 

inspired by their strength and by their courage. I too note the great 

sensitivity of this issue. 

But we can’t continue to not talk about it. We cannot continue 

to pretend that these statistics belong to somebody else. Even 

though it is difficult, we must expose this for what it is. 

I am very disturbed to hear of the systemic shortcomings that 

preclude the successful prosecution of these violent acts. These 

shortcomings, such as the law enforcement, the inadequacies of the 

IHS forensic processes needed to support the prosecutions, they 

contribute to a haven of lawlessness in Native communities. And 

they have to be addressed. And they can be addressed immediately. 

4

I have hope that this hearing will reveal some solutions to this 

issue. I am certain that we can do a better job of providing the resources necessary to ensure that Alaska Native and Indian women 

are safe in their communities. I was a proud sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. I look forward to hearing perspectives from the DOJ Tribal Consultation held last week on that. 

But I know that government alone can’t get rid of the violence 

that we see within our Native communities. It is going to take a 

partnership of our Native leaders, of our Native people, of law enforcement agencies, of social service providers, to carry these solutions to fruition. 

I note that we have many witnesses here today from different 

areas, different parts of the Country with different stories. I look 

forward to hearing form them, from their perspective, but also to 

understand what they might propose to be some of the solutions to 

this very, very difficult issue. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

Senator Barrasso? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, 

I applaud the leadership of the Committee for bringing this hearing 

on this important topic to us today. I want to thank the incredible 

individuals who are going to be here today to testify, because it 

does require courage and strength and fortitude to come and tell 

these stories. It is remarkable. 

As an orthopedic surgeon, I take care of women who have been 

the subject of crimes of violence, and it is difficult as a treating 

physician and it is difficult for the families, it is difficult for the 

women. I think it is wonderful that we are doing this, Mr. Chairman. 

I need to apologize in advance, I have another committee that is 

starting soon where I need to be. But I want to carefully watch and 

listen to what has been said and will read all the testimony. 

We have a current vacancy, Mr. Chairman, in our U.S. Attorney 

in Wyoming. Our last U.S. Attorney prosecuted an incredible drug 

ring on our Indian reservation and has done some significant work 

to help the other people who are living there in this time of crime. 

We need to have that vacancy filled so we can help with prosecutions there of horrible crimes and violent acts like we are going to 

hear about today. So any help that I could get from other members 

of the Committee in getting that U.S. Attorney position filled in 

Wyoming would be helpful to all of the people of Wyoming, and 

specifically on our Indian reservations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much. 

I must say, our Committee is excited to be rejoined by Senator 

Johnson. Senator Johnson has long been a very important part of 

the Indian Affairs Committee and an unbelievable champion of the 

issues that really matter. So Senator Johnson, glad to see you back. 

Do you have an opening comment? 

5

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chair 

Murkowski. I thank you for holding this hearing. 

I particularly want to thank Karen Artichoker for her presence 

today, her insights on the circumstances facing the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe and for her testimony today and her leadership on the issue. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson, thank you very much. 

Before I call the five witnesses, I want to make one additional 

comment. There is a chart up here that quotes Ron His Horse Is 

Thunder, who is chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. That 

is an Indian reservation that Senator Johnson’s State and my State 

share on both sides of the border. He says, ‘‘As long as the Tribe 

must depend on the Federal Government to police and prosecute 

people on their own land, anyone who comes here may well be able 

to rape or assault women, like Leslie Iron Road, and get away with 

it.’’ He was making those comments in a story that was published. 

But this is from a chairman of a tribe, a very astute, really a terrific chairman. We have worked long with Ron His Horse Is Thunder. And that is a startling statement but one that I respect him 

making. 

I want to make one other point. I referred to Troy Eid, the U.S. 

Attorney in Colorado. I want to tell you fully what he said. He said, 

‘‘Indian reservations are being used as business development tools 

by the large drug trafficking organizations.’’ In a drug bust in Wyoming’s Wind River Indian Reservation, occupied by Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes, U.S. Attorney Eid talked about 

a business plan seized by authorities that outlined how the drug 

organization wanted to replace alcohol abuse with meth abuse. It 

described in graphic terms how they planned to establish romantic 

relationships with women, get them hooked and get them to deal. 

Establishing relationships with them was designed to gain access 

into the Indian community. 

That is frightening stuff. I appreciate the work that U.S. Attorney Eid has done. He has some very terrific, really competent 

work. We really appreciate that work. 

So let me call forward the witnesses, and as I do, thank them 

very much for being willing to appear today. 

Ms. Alexandra Arriaga is the Director of Government Relations 

for Amnesty International in Washington, D.C. Ms. Jami Rozell, 

Educator and a Survivor in Oklahoma. Tammy Young, Co-Director, 

Alaska Native Women’s Coalition Against Domestic Violence and 

Sexual Assault in Sitka, Alaska. Ms. Karen Artichoker, the Director of the Sacred Circle in Rapid City, South Dakota. And Riyaz 

Kanji, Kanji and Katzen, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 

I want to thank all of you for being willing to come and testify. 

As Senator Murkowski and I have both indicated, this is a very 

sensitive topic. I recall the first acquaintance with violence on Indian reservations, sitting with a young girl named Tamara and her 

grandfather, Reginald. I went to see them because I read about 

something that had happened to this little girl. Her nose was broken, her arm was broken, her hair pulled out at the roots. She was 

placed in a foster home as a young child without anyone checking 

6

whether the foster home was safe. In a drunken party, this girl 

was savagely abused. She will have those scars for her life, I supposed, her entire life. 

But it reminds me that this subject is not about some ethereal 

debate. It is about real people’s lives, and about a law enforcement 

system that is now not working and as a result, violence against 

women and abuse of women exists that ought to be obliterated. We 

hope through this hearing and through your testimony and through 

other approaches that we can work together to achieve, we hope to 

make some significant progress. So let me thank all of you. 

Alexandra Arriaga, one of the, not the only, but one of the things 

that prompted us to hold a hearing was a number of articles including the study that was released by Amnesty International. We 

appreciate your being here, and you may proceed. The entire statements made by all of you will be made a part of the permanent 

record and you are welcome to summarize your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA ARRIAGA, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL U.S.A. 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, thank you, 

Madam Vice Chairman and Senator Johnson, it is very good to see 

you here. Thank you. 

I am honored to be here to speak about the issue today. Amnesty 

International, as you know, is a worldwide human rights organization. We have $2.2 million people around the world who are supporters in 150 countries and territories. We learned about the startling statistics of the sexual violence that is plaguing Indian Country and that is victimizing and creating survivors, very courageous 

women as well, among Native American and Alaska Native women. 

Amnesty, as you said, has recently released a report entitled 

‘‘Maze of Injustice: the Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from 

Sexual Violence in the United States.’’ It focuses on this crisis, but 

as you have stated, Mr. Chairman and Madam Vice Chair, this is 

simply a report that has added public attention and has served as 

a wake-up call. This is a report that has really simply brought attention to an issue that has been occurring for a very long time and 

that Native advocates have been speaking about for decades. 

We launched this investigation after learning of a U.S. Department of Justice’s own statistics that are quite shocking. As many 

of you may have heard, the DOJ suggests that Native women are 

more than two and a half times more likely than other women in 

the United States to be raped; that more than one in three Native 

American and Alaska Native women is likely to be raped in her 

lifetime; and that 86 percent of the perpetrators of these crimes are 

non-Native men. These statistics are shocking and yet Amnesty 

International believes that they severely underestimate the crisis. 

In preparing this report, Amnesty International worked closely 

with Native American and Alaska Native individuals and organizations, with law enforcement and health service personnel, with 

Government officials. We conducted detailed research into specifically three locations that have very different jurisdictional considerations. One was the Standing Rock Reservation in North and 

South Dakota. another was the State of Oklahoma and then also 

the State of Alaska. Many courageous women came forward to 

7

share their stories. As you have said, Mr. Chairman, this is about 

real people’s lives. 

I would like to just begin in order to bring that home, as you 

have, to tell very briefly one of the stories that we heard. Della 

Brown, a 33 year old Alaska Native woman, was raped, mutilated 

and murdered. Her body was discovered in an abandoned shed in 

Anchorage, and that was in September 2000. Her skull was so pulverized the coroner compared her head to a bag of ice. Reportedly 

a number of people walked through the shed lighting matches in 

order to view her battered remains, but did not report the murder 

to the Anchorage police. To date, no one has been brought to justice 

for the rape and murder of Della Brown. 

This is one of countless stories, and I know that you have heard 

many more. 

Amnesty International found what Native women have already 

known and said for decades: many survivors of attacks may never 

get a police response, they may never have access to a sexual assault forensic examination and they may never see their case prosecuted. Barriers include jurisdictional maze and a chronic lack of 

resources for law enforcement and health services. 

Perpetrators of sexual violence are rarely being brought to justice. Prosecutions for crimes of sexual violence against indigenous 

women are rare in Federal, State and tribal courts. The high levels 

of impunity can become an incentive for perpetrators to commit 

further crimes. As one interviewee told Amnesty, it feels as though 

the reservation has become lawless. 

Several factors contribute to this crisis. More data is urgently 

needed. Available data underestimates the rates of violence. Many 

women in the Standing Rock Reservation, for example, said they 

could not think of a single woman who had not suffered some form 

of sexual violence. 

No official statistics exist specifically on sexual violence in Indian 

Country or Alaska villages. That needs to change. 

Amnesty International received numerous reports that complicated jurisdictional issues significantly delay and prolong the 

process of investigating and prosecuting crimes of sexual violence. 

As you are aware, three main factors determine where jurisdictional authorities lies: whether the victim is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; whether the accused is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; and whether the 

alleged offense took place on tribal land or not. 

The answers to these questions are quite complicated and not always self-evident. Some tribal, State and Federal law enforcement 

agencies have addressed these jurisdictional complexities by entering into cooperation agreements. The experience here is quite 

mixed, but it is something to explore. Chronic under-funding also 

contributes to the inadequate law enforcement response. According 

to the Department of Justice, tribes only have between 55 and 75 

percent of the law enforcement resources available comparable to 

non-Native rural communities. There are many places where there 

is no accessible road and no law enforcement process at all, such 

as you know, Senator, is the case in some locations in Alaska. 

Training, communication and plans of action are necessary. It is 

essential that training occur in order to have better understanding 

8

of the surrounding jurisdictional issues, but also knowledge of the 

cultural norms and practices. And these must be determined in 

conjunction with Native advocates. It has to be developed in consultation. There should also be plans of action that are developed 

with advocates in order to be able to address these issues 

preventably as well. 

I will touch quickly on just a few other areas. Forensic examinations, as you have already noted, is a very important area. The forensic exams are essential to ensuring the possibility of adequate 

treatment but also prosecutions. There are severe limitations right 

now with the IHS facilities and their contract facilities. This is an 

area perhaps we can explore further in the Q&A. 

One important area here is the need for standardized protocols. 

Also the need for sexual assault nurse examiners. And also the 

need to clarify who covers the cost and expense of the exams and 

the transportation. Certainly the victim should not be covering 

these real costs. That does occur. 

There is also an issue of law enforcement agencies that lack sufficient funds to ensure the timely processing of evidence, and this 

is due to cuts in funding that have happened at the Federal level. 

Resourcing for the programs that are run by Native women is 

also critically important, especially under such dire circumstances. 

Very quickly, the barriers that exist in Federal law that prevent 

the tribal nations from being able to carry out justice are severe. 

As citizens of particular tribal nations, the welfare and safety of 

American Indian and Alaska Native women is directly linked to the 

authority and capacity of their nations to address such violence. A 

series of U.S. Federal laws and Supreme Court decisions have had 

a devastating impact. In particular, the Major Crimes Act, Public 

Law 280, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and of course, the case of Oliphant. Among the egregious consequences of these laws and court 

decisions, the tribes are limited to handing down custodial sentencing to only 1 year per offense, and tribal courts are prohibited 

from prosecuting non-Indian suspects. 

At the Federal and State level there is a failure to pursue cases 

of sexual violence against indigenous women. The extent to which 

these cases are dropped before they even reach a Federal court is 

difficult to quantify, as the U.S. Attorney’s office appears not to 

compile statistics. When Federal prosecutors decline to prosecute 

cases involving non-Native perpetrators, there is no further recourse for indigenous survivors under criminal law within the 

United States. 

Tribal courts are the most appropriate for adjudicating these 

cases that arise on tribal land. Despite severe restrictions and obstacles and severe under-funding, the tribal systems have been addressing some of these cases for decades. Some tribal courts seek 

to overcome these limitations by handing down sequential sentences on a variety of crimes, for example. 

International law is clear: sexual violence against women is not 

a criminal act or social issue alone, it is a human rights abuse. The 

United States has ratified many international treaties that address 

this, but has yet to ratify the treaty for the rights of women which 

can help discrimination and violence against women worldwide. 

9

The next steps Congress takes must be determined in close consultation and cooperation with indigenous leaders. But all women 

have the right to be safe and free from violence. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Arriaga follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA ARRIAGA, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL U.S.A. 

Della Brown, a 33-year-old Alaska Native woman was raped, mutilated and 

murdered. Her body was discovered in an abandoned shed in Anchorage in September 2000. Her skull was so pulverized the coroner compared her head to a 

‘‘bag of ice’’. Reportedly, a number of people walked through the shed, lighting 

matches in order to view her battered remains, but did not report the murder 

to the Anchorage police. To date, no-one has been brought to justice for the rape 

and murder of Della Brown.

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting Amnesty 

International to testify on an issue that significantly impacts the human rights of 

American Indian and Alaska Native women. Amnesty is a worldwide human rights 

movement with more than 2.2 million members. Our mission is to conduct research 

and take action to prevent and end grave abuses of all human rights. I will focus 

my remarks on the findings of Amnesty’s recent report ‘‘Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA.’’

Amnesty International is a worldwide human rights movement with more than 

2.2 million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and territories. Amnesty International’s vision is for every person to enjoy all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international 

human rights standards. Amnesty International’s mission is to conduct research and 

take action to prevent and end grave abuses of all human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or 

religion. The organization is funded by individual members; no funds are sought or 

accepted from governments for investigating and campaigning against human rights 

abuses. 

‘‘Maze of Injustice’’ Report 

On April 24, 2007, Amnesty International released the findings of over 2 years 

of investigation into the problem of sexual violence against Native American and 

Alaska Native Women. The report is part of a worldwide campaign to Stop Violence 

Against Women launched by Amnesty International in March 2004. Since then AI 

has published reports on aspects of violence against women in 40 countries. 

Amnesty International launched an investigation after learning that U.S. Department of Justice’s own statistics indicate that Native American and Alaska Native 

women are more than 2.5 times more likely than other women in the U.S. to be 

raped. According to Department of Justice statistics, more than 1 in 3 Native American and Alaska Native women will be raped at some point during their lives and 

86 percent of perpetrators of these crimes are non-Native men. 

Amnesty International’s report examines some of the reasons why Indigenous 

women in the U.S. are at such risk of sexual violence and why survivors are so frequently denied justice. The report is based on research carried out during 2005 and 

2006 in consultation with Native American and Alaska Native individuals and organizations. In the course of this research, Amnesty International’s interviewed survivors of sexual violence and their families, activists, support workers, service providers, and health workers. Amnesty International also interviewed officials across 

the U.S., including tribal, state and Federal law enforcement officials and prosecutors, as well as tribal judges. Amnesty International also met representatives from 

the Federal agencies which share responsibility with tribal authorities for addressing or responding to crimes in Indian Country. 

Amnesty International conducted detailed research in three locations with different policing and judicial arrangements: the Standing Rock Reservation in North 

and South Dakota, the State of Oklahoma, and the State of Alaska. While this report presents a national overview of sexual violence against Indigenous women, it 

primarily presents our specific findings in these key areas of research. 

Each location was selected for its specific jurisdictional characteristics. The Standing Rock Reservation illustrates the challenges involved in policing a vast, rural resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
10

ervation where tribal and Federal authorities have jurisdiction. Oklahoma is composed for the most part of parcels of tribal lands intersected by state land where 

tribal, state or Federal authorities may have jurisdiction. In Alaska, Federal authorities have transferred their jurisdiction to state authorities so that only tribal 

and state authorities have jurisdiction. 

This report attempts to represent the stories of survivors of sexual violence as 

many survivors courageously came forward to share their stories. For example:

One Native American woman living on the Standing Rock Reservation told Amnesty that in 2005 her partner raped her and beat her so severely that she had 

to be hospitalized. An arrest warrant was issued after he failed to appear in 

court but he was not arrested. One morning she woke up to find him standing 

by her couch looking at her.

The perspectives of survivors, as well as the Native women at the forefront of efforts to protect Indigenous women must inform all actions taken to end sexual violence. 

Amnesty International is indebted to all the survivors of sexual violence who courageously came forward to share their stories and to those who provided support 

to survivors before and after they spoke with Amnesty International and to the Native American and Alaska Native organizations, experts and individuals who provided advice and guidance on research methodology and on the report itself. Amnesty International hopes that ‘‘Maze of Injustice’’ can contribute to and support the 

work of the many Native American and Alaska Native women’s organizations and 

activists who have been at the forefront of efforts to protect and serve women. 

Amnesty International’s research confirmed what Native American and Alaska 

Native advocates have long known: that sexual violence against women from Indian 

nations is at epidemic proportions and that Indian women face considerable barriers 

to accessing justice. Native American and Alaska Native women may never get a 

police response, may never have access to a sexual assault forensic examination 

and, even if they do, they may never see their case prosecuted. As a result of barriers, including a complex jurisdictional maze and a chronic lack of resources for law 

enforcement and health services, perpetrators of sexual violence are not being 

brought to justice. 

High Levels of Sexual Violence 

Amnesty International’s interviews suggest that available statistics on sexual violence greatly underestimate the severity of the problem and fail to paint a comprehensive picture of the abuses. No statistics exist specifically on sexual violence 

in Indian Country or Alaska Native villages; more data is urgently needed to establish the prevalence of violence against Indigenous women. In the Standing Rock 

Sioux Reservation, for example, many of the women who agreed to be interviewed 

could not think of any Native women within their community who had not been subjected to sexual violence. 

Issues of Jurisdiction 

Support workers told Amnesty International about the rapes of two Native American women in 2005 in Oklahoma. In both cases the women were raped by three 

non-Native men. Other similarities between the crimes were reported: the alleged 

perpetrators, who wore condoms, blindfolded the victims and made them take a 

bath. Because the women were blindfolded, support workers were concerned that 

the women would be unable to say whether the rapes took place on Federal, state 

or tribal land. There was concern that, because of the jurisdictional complexities 

in Oklahoma, uncertainty about exactly where these crimes took place might affect the ability of these women to obtain justice.

Interviews with support workers (details withheld), May 2005

Amnesty International received numerous reports that complicated jurisdictional 

issues can significantly delay and prolong the process of investigating and prosecuting crimes of sexual violence. 

Three main factors determine where jurisdictional authority lies: whether the victim is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; whether the accused 

is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or not; and whether the alleged 

offense took place on tribal land or not. The answers to these questions are often 

not self-evident. However, they determine whether a crime should be investigated 

by tribal, Federal or state police, whether it should be prosecuted by a tribal prosecutor, a state prosecutor (District Attorney) or a Federal prosecutor (U.S. Attorney) 

and whether it should be tried at tribal, state or Federal level. Last, this determination dictates the body of law to be applied to the case: tribal, Federal or state. 

11

The jurisdiction of these different authorities often overlaps, resulting in confusion 

and uncertainty. In many areas there may be dual jurisdiction. The end result can 

sometimes be so confusing that no one intervenes, leaving victims without legal protection or redress and resulting in impunity for the perpetrators, especially non-Native offenders who commit crimes on tribal land. 

As citizens of particular tribal nations, the welfare and safety of American Indian 

and Alaska Native women are directly linked to the authority and capacity of their 

nations to address such violence. A series of Federal laws and U.S. Supreme Court 

decisions over the years have increasingly restricted the authority of American Indian and Alaska Native Nations to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on 

tribal land. The undermining of tribal authority has occurred over time and in many 

ways. However, four laws have had a particularly significant impact: the Major 

Crimes Act, Public Law 280, and the Indian Civil Rights Act along with the case 

law of Oliphant v Suquamish.

• The Major Crimes Act (1885) granted the Federal authorities jurisdiction over 

certain serious crimes committed by Indian perpetrators, including rape and 

murder, committed in Indian Country. There has been a widespread misconception that under the Act only the Federal authorities have the authority to prosecute major crimes. In fact, tribal authorities retain concurrent jurisdiction over 

perpetrators that are Indian. Nevertheless, the impact of the Act in practice has 

been that fewer major crimes have been pursued through the tribal justice systems.

• State authorities do not generally have the authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over American Indians/Alaska Natives on tribal land. Public Law 280 

(1953), however, transferred Federal criminal jurisdiction over many offenses 

involving members of federally recognized Indian tribes on designated tribal 

lands to state governments in some states. The U.S. Congress gave six states—

California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Wisconsin and Alaska upon statehood—extensive criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian Country. Public Law 

280 also permitted additional states-currently exercised in varying degrees by 

Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Utah and Washington—to acquire jurisdiction if they wished, and while a number of states originally opted to do so, currently only Florida exercises full Public Law 280 jurisdiction. Where Public Law 280 is applied, both tribal and state 

authorities have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed on tribal land by 

American Indians or Alaska Natives. Public Law 280 is seen by many Indigenous peoples as an affront to tribal sovereignty, not least because states have 

the option to assume and to relinquish jurisdiction, a power not extended to the 

tribal governments affected. In addition, Congress failed to provide additional 

funds to Public Law 280 states to support the law enforcement activities they 

had assumed. The BIA, however, reduced funding to tribal authorities as a result of the shift in jurisdiction. This has led to a situation where tribal and 

state authorities have not received sufficient funds to assume their respective 

law enforcement responsibilities, resulting in a perception of ‘‘lawlessness’’ in 

some communities and difficult relations between tribal and state officials.

• The Indian Civil Rights Act (1968) limited the criminal sentence which can be 

imposed by tribal courts for any offence—including murder or rape—to a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment and a U.S. $5,000 fine. No such limits exist for 

tribal civil jurisdiction. The message sent by this law is that, in practice, tribal 

justice systems are only equipped to handle less serious crimes. While this limitation on the custodial sentencing powers of tribes (and resource limitations) 

substantially limits the ability of tribal justice systems to hold offenders accountable, an increasing number of tribal courts are prosecuting sexual assault 

cases due to the inadequate rate of Federal and state prosecutions of sexual assault cases.

In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that tribal courts could not exercise criminal 

jurisdiction over non-Indian U.S. citizens. This ruling in the case of Oliphant v. 

Suquamish effectively strips tribal authorities of the power to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indian perpetrators on tribal land. This situation is of particular concern given the number of reported crimes of sexual violence against American Indian women involving non-Indian men. In such situations, either Federal or state 

authorities have the authority to intervene. Reportedly, the apparent gap in jurisdiction or enforcement has encouraged non-Indian individuals to pursue criminal activities of various kinds in Indian Country. Tribal police do have limited powers of 

arrest over non-Indian suspects in some states and they also retain the power to 

detain non-Indian suspects in Indian Country in order to transfer them to either 

12

Federal or state authorities, but this is not generally understood by state or Federal 

officials.

Each location Amnesty International selected has specific jurisdictional characteristics. Tribal and Federal authorities have concurrent jurisdiction on all Standing 

Rock Reservation lands over crimes where the suspected perpetrator is American Indian. In instances in which the suspected perpetrator is non-Indian, Federal officials 

have exclusive jurisdiction. Neither North nor South Dakota state police have jurisdiction over sexual violence against Native American women on the Standing Rock 

Reservation. State police do however have jurisdiction over crimes of sexual violence 

committed on tribal land in instances where the victim and the perpetrator are both 

non-Indian. Amnesty International received reports that perpetrators seek to evade 

law enforcement by fleeing to another jurisdiction. According to a state prosecutor 

in South Dakota, the confusing and complicated jurisdiction over crime on and 

around reservations in South Dakota, means that some crimes just ‘‘fall through the 

cracks.’’

‘‘[N]on-Native perpetrators often seek out a reservation place because they know 

they can inflict violence without much happening to them.’’

Andrea Smith, University of Michigan, Assistant Professor of Native Studies

Amnesty International found that jurisdictional issues in Oklahoma are a constant concern since police officers responding to a crime have difficulties determining whether or not the land in question is state, tribal or Federal. Oklahoma 

is a geographical patchwork where non-contiguous parcels of tribal land are often 

intersected by state land. Both Indian and non-Indian people frequently cross between different jurisdictions several times a day. One support worker told AI that, 

in responding to an emergency call, arguments over jurisdiction between tribal and 

state police are not always resolved, resulting in inadequate investigation and evidence collection. 

In Alaska, the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission (2006) 

found that ‘‘There is no doubt that reduction in state/tribal conflict over jurisdictional issues, and increased cooperation, coordination and collaboration between 

state and tribal courts and agencies, would greatly improve life in rural Alaska and 

better serve all Alaskans.’’

Jurisdictional authority has been the subject of considerable debate in Alaska. 

Upon statehood, Alaska was included as one of the original states in which Public 

Law 280 applied, giving the state (in place of Federal authorities) concurrent criminal jurisdiction with tribes to prosecute crimes committed by and against Alaska 

Native peoples on tribal land throughout much of Alaska. The state of Alaska, however, took the position that statehood had extinguished the Alaska Native village’s 

criminal law enforcement authority and reportedly threatened councils with criminal prosecution ‘‘should they attempt to enforce their village laws.’’

The situation in Alaska is further complicated because of issues around how tribal 

lands are designated. A combination of Federal legislation and U.S. Supreme Court 

decisions about the definition and status of tribal lands has resulted in considerable 

confusion and debate over jurisdiction within the state. This debate arises from the 

unique way in which Indigenous land claims in Alaska were settled. Following the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), passed by the U.S. Congress in 

1971, there has been considerable debate about whether the land to which Alaska 

Native title was recognized qualifies as Indian Country. In 1998 the Supreme Court 

ruled that ANCSA lands were not Indian Country. It is important to note that the 

Court also found that ANCSA did not intend to terminate tribal sovereignty, but 

that it left Alaska tribes ‘‘sovereigns without territorial reach.’’ This issue is important because criminal jurisdiction normally has a territorial element.

‘‘Federally recognized tribes have a local government presence but have disputed 

jurisdiction. The state has jurisdiction, but often lacks an effective local government presence. The result is a gap that leaves many villages without effective law 

enforcement.’’

Initial Report and Recommendations of the Alaska Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission (2006).

While the State has sought to limit the exercise of tribal authority and traditional 

justice methods for keeping the peace in villages, it has at the same time failed to 

provide state law enforcement services. The result is that many villages have been 

left without law enforcement protection. It is important to note that it was never 

the intent of the Federal Government for Public Law 280 to extinguish tribal jurisdiction over criminal offenses. Furthermore, over 200 Alaska Native entities remain 

federally recognized governmental bodies. 

13

Amnesty International is concerned that jurisdictional issues not only cause confusion and uncertainty for survivors of sexual violence, but also result in uneven 

and inconsistent access to justice and accountability. This leaves victims without 

legal protection or redress and allows impunity for the perpetrators, especially nonIndian offenders who commit crimes on tribal land. 

Inter-agency Cooperation

‘‘It’s only about a mile from town to the bridge. Once they cross the bridge [to 

the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation], there’s not much we can do. We’ve had 

people actually stop after they’ve crossed and laugh at us. We couldn’t do anything.’’

Walworth County Sheriff Duane Mohr, The Rapid City Journal, December 21, 

2005.

Some tribal, state and Federal law enforcement agencies address the jurisdictional complexities by entering into cooperation agreements. These may take the 

form of cross-deputization agreements, which allow law enforcement officials to respond to crimes that would otherwise be outside their jurisdiction. A second form 

of agreement addresses extradition in situations in which a perpetrator seeks to escape prosecution by fleeing to another jurisdiction. Across the U.S., experiences of 

such inter-agency cooperation agreements vary greatly. Where they are entered into 

on the basis of mutual respect, cooperation agreements can have the potential to 

smooth jurisdictional uncertainties and allow improved access to justice for victims 

of sexual violence. 

Problems of Policing 

Amnesty International found that police response to sexual violence against 

American Indian and Alaska Native women at all levels is inadequate. Although jurisdictional issues present some of the biggest problems in law enforcement response, other factors also have a significant impact including lack of resources. 

Lack of Resources: Delays and Failure to Respond

In an Alaska Native village in 2005, an Alaska Native man became violent, beating his wife with a shotgun and attempting to fire it at her; he then barricaded 

himself in a house with four children. As the village had no law enforcement 

presence, residents called State Troopers 150 miles away. It took the troopers 

more than 4 hours to reach the village and, in that time period, the man had 

raped a 13-year-old Alaska Native girl on a bed, with an infant crying beside 

her, as her 5-year-old brother and 7-year-old cousin watched helplessly.

Law enforcement in Indian Country and Alaska Native villages is chronically underfunded. The U.S. Departments of Justice and Interior have both confirmed that 

there is inadequate law enforcement in Indian Country and identified underfunding 

as a central cause. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, tribes only have 

between 55 and 75 percent of the law enforcement resources available to comparable 

non-Native rural communities. AI also found that a very small number of officers 

usually cover large territories and face difficult decisions about how to prioritize 

their initial responses. 

The Standing Rock Police Department in February 2006 consisted of six or seven 

patrol officers to patrol 2.3 million acres of land, with only two officers usually on 

duty during the day. Amnesty International documented lengthy delays in responding to reports of sexual violence against Indigenous women. Women on the reservation who report sexual violence often have to wait for hours or even days before receiving a response from the police department, if they receive a response at all.

‘‘It feels as though the reservation has become lawless.’’

Roundtable interview, Standing Rock Reservation (name withheld) February 22, 

2006.

Sometimes suspects are not arrested for weeks or months after an arrest warrant 

has been issued. Amnesty International was told that on the Standing Rock Reservation there are on average 600–700 outstanding tribal court warrants for arrest 

of individuals charged with criminal offenses. Failure to apprehend suspects in 

cases of sexual violence can put survivors at risk, especially where the alleged perpetrator is an acquaintance or intimate partner and there is a threat of retaliation. 

In Alaska the low numbers of officers in rural outposts, combined with the vast 

expanses and the harsh weather, present major barriers to prompt responses by police to reports of sexual violence. Law enforcement services in Alaska range from 

the larger, municipal police departments found in cities such as Anchorage, to the 

State Troopers (state police officers), who police the outlying rural areas, to Village 

14

Public Safety Officers (VPSO) and Village Police Officers (VPO), which often consist 

of one or two individuals working in smaller villages. Neither VPSOs nor VPOs are 

‘‘certified’’ by the Alaska Police Standard Council because they do not meet training 

and qualification requirements. Over 80 percent of those in Alaska who are not afforded trained and certified law enforcement protection are Alaska Native. At least 

one-third of all Alaska Native villages that are not accessible by road have no law 

enforcement presence at all. 

Those living in rural villages that do not have local or city police departments 

may receive law enforcement services from the state’s 240 State Troopers. In more 

inaccessible communities, State Troopers tend to respond only to more serious 

crimes. It can take State Troopers from 1 day to 6 weeks to respond to crimes including sexual violence in villages, if they respond at all. Because of delays in response by State Troopers, VPSOs and VPOs are often the first to respond to reports 

of crimes, including crimes of sexual violence. VPSOs are relatively few in number 

and have additional responsibilities outside of law enforcement, for example they 

may act as harbor masters. Although they may be the first or only officers to respond, VPSOs cannot serve arrest warrants or investigate serious crimes such as 

rape without the approval of State Troopers.

‘‘Most [VPOs and VPSOs] are ill-equipped. Many have to use their home for office space as well as a holding facility for detainees, and must walk or run to 

the scene of a crime because they lack essential transportation such as snow-machines, four-wheelers and boats, as well as essential equipment such as rape kits 

[for evidence collection].’’

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, et 

al., v State, et al, 25th October 1999.

Amnesty International found that in cases where both tribal and Federal authorities have jurisdiction, FBI involvement in investigations of reports of sexual violence 

against Indigenous women is rare and even in those cases that are pursued by the 

FBI, there can be lengthy delays before investigations start. 

Amnesty International’s research also revealed a worrying lack of communication 

by all levels of law enforcement with survivors. In a number of cases, survivors were 

not informed about the status of investigations, the results of sexual assault forensic 

examinations, the arrest or failure to arrest the suspect, or the status of the case 

before tribal, Federal or state courts. 

Detention in Indian Country 

Another issue that must be considered is the detention needs in Indian Country. 

The Department of Interior Inspector General found in its 2004 report, ‘‘Neither 

Safe nor Secure’’ that there has been a failure to provide safe and secure detention 

facilities throughout Indian Country. Funding for detention in Indian Country has 

been inconsistent and inadequate. For example, the Department of Justice Office of 

Justice Programs provided $44 million for incarceration on tribal lands in 2002 and 

only $14 million in 2006. 

Training 

AI is concerned that Federal, state and tribal training programs for law enforcement officials are not equipping officers to respond adequately and appropriately to 

crimes of rape and other forms of sexual violence against Indigenous women. Basic 

training of law enforcement officers varies from agency to agency. For example, an 

officer in the Standing Rock Police Department reported that training on interviewing survivors of sexual violence is not available unless it is hosted or paid for 

by another organization. He noted that, given the limited number of officers on the 

force, the Standing Rock Police Department cannot provide them all with training 

opportunities. 

Officers need training on cultural norms and practices to enable them to respond 

appropriately, taking into account differences between tribes. This may have implications for how police approach and speak to victims, witnesses and suspects, including, for example, greater awareness of potential language barriers. 

Training on jurisdiction also appears to be inadequate. For example, law enforcement officials in Oklahoma face a jurisdictional maze of different tribal, Federal and 

state areas of authority, yet the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training reportedly provides state police officers with almost no training on jurisdiction. 

Inadequate Forensic Examinations and Related Health Services 

Every effort should be made to facilitate treatment and evidence collection (if the 

patient agrees), regardless of whether the decision to report has been made at 

the time of the exam.’’

15

U.S. National Protocol for Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations.

Another factor that Amnesty found significantly impacts law enforcement and access to justice is the lack of access to forensic exams—critical evidence in a prosecution—often due to the severe underfunding of the IHS. If the authorities fail to provide the examination, this can jeopardize prosecutions and result in those responsible for rape not being brought to justice. 

The examination, which is performed by a health professional, involves the collection of physical evidence and an examination of any injuries. Samples collected in 

the evidence kit include vaginal, anal and oral swabs, finger-nail clippings, clothing 

and hair. Reports to AI indicate that many IHS facilities lack personnel to provide 

examinations, haven’t prioritized development of sexual assault nurse examiner programs and lack protocols for treating victims of sexual violence. 

A 2005 survey conducted by the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center found that 44 percent of Indian Health Service facilities lacked personnel trained to provide emergency services in the event of sexual violence. More 

specifically, there is generally a severe lack of available Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs), registered nurses with advanced education and clinical preparation in forensic examination of victims of sexual violence. Amnesty International understands that there may be challenges to fully staffing all facilities with SANE personnel, but we are concerned that the IHS has not prioritized the implementation 

of SANE programs throughout its facilities. 

Amnesty International is also concerned that IHS facilities lack clear and standardized protocols for treating victims of sexual violence. A 2005 survey conducted 

by the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center of IHS facilities found that 30 percent of responding facilities did not have a protocol in place 

for emergency services in cases of sexual violence. The standardized protocols are 

essential to help ensure adequate treatment of women who have suffered sexual assault. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and largest 

national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments 

passed a resolution in 2005 that the NCAI ‘‘will urge the adoption and implementation of [a] national policy and protocols on rape and sexual assault within the Indian 

Health Service Unit emergency rooms and Contract Health Care facilities/providers.’’

The person who carries out the sexual assault forensic examination may later be 

called upon to testify in court during a prosecution. A high turnover of staff, many 

of whom are on short-term contracts, means that it may be difficult to locate the 

person who performed the examination when they are needed to provide testimony. 

Furthermore, Amnesty International understands that Federal, tribal and state 

prosecutors face significant challenges in ensuring that the IHS personnel who were 

responsible for the collection of the forensic evidence testify in court. Amnesty International strongly encourages efforts to eliminate bureaucratic obstacles and facilitate participation by local personnel so that valuable evidence of sexual assault can 

be submitted successfully in court.

Jami Rozell, a Cherokee woman living in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, told AI that 

she decided to seek prosecution 5 months after she was raped in 2003. She attended a preliminary hearing, but her sexual assault forensic examination—

which had been performed immediately after the rape and included the sexual 

assault nurse examiner’s report, photographs, and the clothing she had been 

wearing—had been destroyed. She was told by the police department that as she 

had not pressed charges at the time, the evidence had been destroyed as a routine 

part of cleaning their evidence storage room. Because the evidence had been destroyed, the District Attorney advised her to drop the complaint.

Furthermore, as the first to respond to reports of sexual assault, law enforcement 

officials have a critical role to play in ensuring that women can get to a hospital 

or clinic where their injuries can be assessed and the forensic examination can be 

done. This is particularly important where women have to travel long distances to 

access a medical facility and may not have any way of getting there themselves. AI 

received reports of confusion and disagreements over who should pay for examinations or transport costs—the IHS, other medical providers, law enforcement agencies 

or the survivors themselves. Amnesty International believes that costs relating to 

sexual assault forensic examinations should be the responsibility of law enforcement 

agencies since the evidence gathered is an essential part of an investigation into a 

report of sexual violence. In any event, survivors should not have to pay the costs 

themselves. 

It is important to ensure that evidence collected during a forensic examination is 

processed. On or about June of 2000, the FBI partnered with the State of Arizona 

16

Laboratory to process evidence from Indian Country crimes, by allocating $450,000 

a year to the State laboratory. This program was the result of a realization that 

crimes in Indian Country needed timely evidence processing, and the FBI lab was 

overwhelmed. Support from the State lab was a logical and cost effective answer. 

Amnesty International recently received a report from a tribal law enforcement 

officer/Director of Public Safety for the Tohono O’odham Nation that, in October of 

2005 the FBI discontinued this vital program. The result is a delay and on occasion 

dismissal of cases because of the lack of evidence analysis, this is particularly critical in sexual assault crimes. This has severely impacted Tribal Police’s ability to 

ensure the processing of forensic examination in cases of rape and sexual assault. 

All survivors of sexual violence should be offered a forensic examination, without 

charge, regardless of whether or not they have decided to report the case to the police. Indigenous women in the USA are being effectively denied access to these examinations either because there is no facility nearby equipped to carry them out, 

the facility is understaffed by individuals trained in the forensic exams or because 

staff are not adequately trained on how to respond to survivors of sexual violence 

and how to do so in a culturally appropriate manner. 

Prosecutions 

‘‘In Oklahoma, prosecution of sexual assault is last, least and left behind.’’

Jennifer McLaughlin, Sexual Assault Specialist, Oklahoma Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, September 2005.

‘‘To a sexual predator, the failure to prosecute sex crimes against American Indian women is an invitation to prey with impunity.’’

Dr. David Lisak, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, 29 September 2003.

A key contributory factor identified in AI’s research for the continuing high levels 

of violence is that all too often those responsible are able to get away with it. Survivors of sexual abuse, activists, support workers and officials told AI that prosecutions for crimes of sexual violence against Indigenous women are rare in Federal, 

state and tribal courts. For example, a health official responsible for carrying out 

sexual assault forensic examinations reported that in about 90 percent of cases, she 

is not contacted again by police or prosecutors about examinations she has performed, although she is available as an expert witness for trials. 

Sexual violence against Native American or Alaska Native women can be prosecuted by tribal, Federal or state authorities, or a combination of these. The U.S. 

Federal Government has created a complex interrelation between these three jurisdictions that often allows perpetrators to evade justice. 

The perpetrator of sexual violence is the person liable under criminal law for this 

act and should be brought to justice. However, the state also bears a responsibility 

if it fails to prevent or investigate and address the crime appropriately. U.S. authorities are failing to exercise due diligence when it comes to sexual violence 

against Native American and Alaska Native women. 

Tribal Courts 

Tribal courts vary greatly both in the statutes and criminal codes which they enforce and their procedures. A common factor, however, is that they face a number 

of limitations imposed at Federal level that interfere with their ability to provide 

justice for Native American and Alaska Native survivors of sexual violence. For example, Federal law prevents tribal courts from prosecuting non-Indian or non-Alaska Native offenders or imposing a custodial sentence of more than 1 year for each 

offense. 

Federal funding of tribal courts is inadequate. The U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights stated in 2003 that tribal courts have been under funded for decades. Inadequate funding by the Federal authorities affects many aspects of the functioning 

of tribal courts, including the ability to proceed with prosecutions promptly. Nevertheless, prosecutions for sexual violence do occur in tribal courts and some courts 

are able to overcome limitations on the sentences they can hand down by imposing 

consecutive sentences for several offenses. Some tribal courts also work with sanctions other than imprisonment, including restitution, community service and probation. 

Tribal prosecutors sometimes decline to prosecute crimes of sexual violence because they expect that Federal prosecutors will do so. Although some tribal prosecutors may choose to take up a case if it is declined for Federal prosecution, as often 

happens, this can result in delays of up to a year and sometimes even longer. Often 

the net result is that perpetrators are not prosecuted at either level. 

17

Federal Courts 

There is a failure at Federal level to pursue cases of sexual violence against Indigenous women. The extent to which cases involving American Indian women are 

dropped before they even reach a Federal court is difficult to quantify as the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office does not compile such statistics. However, the evidence gathered 

by AI suggests that in a considerable number of instances the authorities decide not 

to prosecute reported cases of sexual violence against Native women. 

Federal prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding which cases to prosecute, 

and decisions not to prosecute are rarely reviewed. AI is concerned that the difficulties involved in prosecuting rape cases, combined with the particular jurisdictional 

and practical challenges of pursuing cases where the crime took place on tribal land, 

can deter Federal prosecutors from taking the case. When Federal prosecutors decline to prosecute cases involving non-Native perpetrators, there is no further recourse for Indigenous survivors under criminal law within the USA. 

State Courts 

In some states, such as Alaska, state rather than Federal prosecutors have jurisdiction. However, the same pattern of failing to pursue cases of sexual violence 

against Indigenous women emerged. Health workers in Alaska told AI that there 

is no prosecution in approximately 90 percent of cases where Indigenous women undergo a sexual assault forensic examination in Anchorage. 

In addition, Native American and Alaska Native survivors of sexual violence often 

face prejudice and discrimination at all stages and levels of Federal and state prosecution.

Amnesty International learned of the case of a Native American woman who in 

2003 accepted a ride home from two white men who raped and beat her and then 

threw her off a bridge. A support worker for victims of sexual violence described 

how, ‘‘People said she was asking for it because she was hitchhiking late at 

night.’’ The case went to trial in a state court, but the jurors were unable to agree 

on whether the suspects were guilty. A juror who was asked why replied: ‘‘She 

was just another drunk Indian.’’ Because the jury failed to reach a verdict, the 

case was retried. The second trial resulted in custodial sentence for both perpetrators.

Communicating With Survivors 

Amnesty International received a number of reports that prosecutors at all levels 

fail to provide information consistently to Indigenous victims of sexual violence 

about the progress of their cases. Survivors are frequently not informed whether 

their cases will proceed to trial or not.

‘‘One [Native American] woman I work with told me that she reported her sexual 

assault 2 years ago and that she didn’t know if the case had been investigated 

or prosecuted. I researched the case and discovered it had been declined [for 

prosecution], but no one had told the woman.’’

Support worker for Native American survivors of sexual violence (identity withheld), January 2006.

Inadequate Resources for Indigenous Support Initiatives 

Programs run by Native American and Alaska Native women are vital in ensuring the protection and long-term support of Indigenous women who have experienced sexual violence. However, lack of funding is a widespread problem. Programs 

run by Indigenous women often operate with a mix of Federal, state, and tribal 

funds, as well as private donations. However such funding in often limited. 

In 2005, the non-governmental organization South Dakota Coalition against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault contributed to the founding of Pretty Bird 

Woman House, a domestic violence program on the Standing Rock Reservation. The 

program, which is named after Ivy Archambault (Pretty Bird Woman), a Standing 

Rock woman who was raped and murdered in 2001, operates a shelter in a temporary location and at the time of Amnesty International’s report in April 2007 did 

not have funding for direct services for its clients, but helps women to access services off the Reservation. Given the rates of violence against women on the Standing 

Rock Reservation, it is imperative that the Reservation have its own permanent 

shelter. 

International Law 

Sexual violence against women is not only a criminal or social issue; it is a human 

rights abuse. While the perpetrator is ultimately responsible for his crime, authoriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
18

ties also bear a legal responsibility to ensure protection of the rights and well-being 

of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples. They are responsible as well if they 

fail to prevent, investigate and address the crime appropriately. 

The United States has ratified many of the key international human rights treaties that guarantee Indigenous women’s protection against such abuses, including 

the right not to be tortured or ill-treated; the right to liberty and security of the 

person; and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental 

health. The United States should ratify the Treaty for the Rights of Women 

(CEDAW) which can help end discrimination and violence against women worldwide. The next steps Congress takes must be determined in close consultation and 

cooperation with Indigenous leaders. All women have the right to be safe and free 

from violence. 

International law is clear: governments are obliged not only to ensure that their 

own officials comply with human rights standards, but also to adopt effective measures to guard against acts by private individuals that result in human rights 

abuses. This duty-often termed ‘‘due diligence’’—means that states must take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and, when they occur, use the 

means at their disposal to carry out effective investigations, identify and bring to 

justice those responsible, and ensure that the victim receives adequate reparation. 

Amnesty International’s research shows that the United States is currently failing 

to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish sexual violence against 

Native American and Alaska Native women. The erosion of tribal governmental authority and resources to protect Indigenous women from crimes of sexual violence 

is inconsistent with international standards on the rights of Indigenous peoples. 

The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the U.N. 

Human Rights Council in June 2006, elaborates minimum standards for the recognition and protection of the rights of Indigenous peoples in diverse contexts 

around the world. Provisions of the Declaration include that Indigenous peoples 

have the right of self determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine 

their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development (Article 3); that States shall take measures, in conjunction with indigenous 

peoples, to ensure that indigenous women. enjoy the full protection and guarantees 

against all forms of violence and discrimination. (Article 22(2)); and the right of Indigenous peoples ‘‘to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures 

and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, 

where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international 

human rights standards’’ (Article 34). 

Key Recommendations 

Amnesty International wants to highlight that on September 13th, 2007 the U.N. 

General Assembly adopted the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 

which calls on states to ‘‘consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous 

peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain 

their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative 

or administrative measures that may affect them.’’ (Article 19) 

We respectfully refer you to ‘‘Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous 

women from sexual violence in the USA’’ for more detailed information and recommendations, briefly however the following steps need to be taken: 

Develop Comprehensive Plans of Action to Stop Violence Against Indigenous Women 

• Federal and state governments should consult and cooperate with Indigenous 

nations and Indigenous women to institute plans of action to stop violence 

against Indigenous women.

For instance, the Safety for Indian Women Demonstration Initiative is an effort 

by the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to 

enhance the response of tribal and Federal agencies to the high rates of sexual 

assault committed against Native American women. Under the initiative, OVW 

awarded over $900,000 to four tribes to achieve such goals as: enhance the response of tribal and Federal agencies to sexual assault of Native American 

women; build upon an existing coordinated community response to sexual assault of Native American women; strengthen the capacity of tribal justice systems to respond to sexual assault of Native American women; enhance and increase advocacy and services for Native American victims of sexual assault; 

strengthen coordination between tribal and Federal agencies responding to 

crimes of sexual assault against Native American women; and expand current 

responses to crimes of sexual assault against Native American women. Adequate and consistent funding should be provided for such initiatives. At present, 

19

AI has been unable to establish whether or not this initiative continues to be 

funded.

• Federal, state and tribal authorities should, in consultation with Indigenous 

peoples, collect and publish detailed and comprehensive data on rape and other 

sexual violence that shows the Indigenous or other status of victims and perpetrators and the localities where such offenses take place, the number of cases 

referred for prosecution, the number declined by prosecutors and the reasons 

why.

Ensure Appropriate, Effective Policing 

• Congress and Federal authorities must take urgent steps to make available adequate resources to police forces in Indian and Alaska Native villages. Particular 

attention should be paid to improving coverage in rural areas with poor transport and communications infrastructure.

• All law enforcement officials should respond promptly to reports of sexual violence, take effective steps to protect survivors from further abuse, and undertake thorough investigations.

• Law enforcement agencies should recognize in policy and practice that all police 

officers have the authority to take action in response to reports of sexual violence, including rape, within their jurisdiction and to apprehend the alleged perpetrators in order to transfer them to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution. In particular, where sexual violence in committed in Indian Country and in Alaska Native villages, tribal law enforcement officials 

must be recognized as having authority to apprehend both Native and non-Native suspects.

• All law enforcement agencies should cooperate with, and expect cooperation 

from, neighboring law enforcement bodies on the basis of mutual respect and 

genuine collaboration to ensure protection of survivors and those at risk of sexual violence, including rape, and to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice. These may take the form of:

—Cross-deputization agreements, which allow law enforcement officials to respond to crimes that would otherwise be outside their jurisdiction. In addition 

authorities.

—Extradition agreements address situations in which a perpetrator seeks to escape prosecution by fleeing to another jurisdiction. Tribal and state authorities may enter into extradition agreements, in which each agrees to allow the 

other to return fleeing perpetrators to the jurisdiction of the crime.

• In states where criminal jurisdiction on tribal land has been transferred from 

Federal to state authorities (including Public Law 280 states), Congress should 

ensure that tribal governments, like state governments, have the option to 

transfer jurisdiction back from the state to the Federal authorities.

• In order to fulfil their responsibilities effectively, all police forces should work 

closely with Indigenous women’s organizations to develop and implement appropriate investigation protocols for dealing with cases of sexual violence.

Ensure Access to Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations 

• Law enforcement agencies and health service providers should ensure that all 

Indigenous women survivors of sexual violence have access to adequate and 

timely sexual assault forensic examinations without charge to the survivor and 

at a facility within a reasonable distance.

• Congress and the Federal Government should permanently increase funding for 

the Indian Health Service to improve and further develop facilities and services, 

and increase permanent staffing in both urban and rural areas in order ensure 

adequate levels of medical attention.

• The Indian Health Service and other health service providers should develop 

standardized policies and protocols, which are made publicly available and posted within health facilities in view of the public, on responding to reports of sexual violence.

• The Indian Health Service and other health service providers should prioritize 

the creation of sexual assault nurse examiner programs and explore other ways 

of addressing the shortage and retention of qualified Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners.

• The Indian Health Service and other health service providers should facilitate 

the availability at trial of forensic evidence of sexual assault by eliminating buVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
20

reaucratic obstacles and encouraging participation of appropriate medical personnel.

Law enforcement agencies in Indian Country should receive sufficient funding to 

ensure the timely processing of evidence collected from sexual assault forensic examinations.

Ensure That Prosecution and Judicial Practices Deliver Justice

• Congress should recognize the concurrent jurisdiction of tribal courts (meaning 

that tribal courts, and/or the state or Federal courts, could try suspects) regardless of the Indigenous or other identity of the accused.

• Congress should amend the Indian Civil Rights Act to recognize the authority 

of tribal courts to impose penalties proportionate to the offences they try.

• Prosecutors should vigorously prosecute cases of sexual violence against Indigenous women and should be sufficiently resourced to ensure that the cases are 

treated with the appropriate priority and processes without undue delay. Any 

decision not to proceed with a case, together with the rationale for the decision, 

should be promptly communicated to the survivor of sexual violence and any 

other prosecutor with jurisdiction.

• All U.S. Attorneys should begin immediately to collect and publish publicly data 

on the number of cases of sexual violence of Native American and Alaska Native women referred for Federal prosecution, the number declined and reasons 

for decline.

• Congress should recognize that tribal authorities have jurisdiction over all offenders who commit crimes on tribal land, regardless of their Indigenous or 

other identity and the authority to impose sentences commensurate with the 

crime that are consistent with international human rights standards.

• Congress and Federal authorities should make available the necessary funding 

and resources to tribal governments to develop and maintain tribal courts and 

legal systems which comply with international human rights standards, while 

also reflecting the cultural and social norms of their peoples.

Ensure Availability of Support Services for Survivors

• All governments should support and ensure adequate funding for support services, including shelters, for American Indian and Alaska Native survivors of 

sexual violence.

Additional Recommendations

• Congress should fully fund and implement the Violence Against Women Act—

and in particular Tribal Title (Title IX), the first-ever effort within VAWA to 

fight violence against Native American and Alaska Native women. This includes 

a national baseline study on sexual violence against Native women, a study on 

the incidence of injury from sexual violence against Native women and a Tribal 

Registry to track sex offenders and orders of protection.

• The Senate should ratify the Treaty for the Rights of Women, officially the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 

(CEDAW). Although the United States played a key role in drafting this treaty, 

it remains one of eight countries yet to ratify. This treaty can help end discrimination and violence against women worldwide.

• The next steps Congress takes must be determined in close consultation and cooperation with Indigenous leaders.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important human rights topic.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Arriaga, thank you very much for being 

here, and thank you for the work that Amnesty International has 

done. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Jami Rozell, who is an educator from 

Oklahoma. Ms. Rozell. 

21

STATEMENT OF JAMI ROZELL, EDUCATOR, CHEROKEE 

NATION, OKLAHOMA 

Ms. ROZELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would like to submit 

my full testimony for the record. 

My name is Jami Rozell, and I am a member of the Cherokee 

Nation and a school teacher from Oklahoma. I will always remember the date, Friday, May 9th, 2003, I was 21 years old in my home 

town of Tahlequah, Oklahoma and raped by a non-Native man I 

have known since junior high. I was accompanied that same night 

to the Indian Health Services hospital at Hastings by my brother, 

who called the city police. The Hastings hospital was not equipped 

to do rape exams, so we were taken then to the Tahlequah City 

Hospital next door. 

At the city hospital, we waited a couple of hours for the sexual 

assault nurse examiner to arrive. The hospital had called an advocate from the local sexual assault service provider, Help in Crisis, 

to be there with me during the exam. The nurse finally arrived and 

so did the rest of my family. I know that I was fortunate to have 

my family and an advocate with me at this difficult and scary time. 

This is not the case for all Native American women going through 

an exam or police questioning. 

It was horribly uncomfortable to have a camera inside of me, and 

I was grateful to have my family with me at the hospital. The 

nurse took photos of all the bruises, blisters and abrasions inside 

of me and kept my underwear as evidence. My mom asked the 

nurse if she could clearly tell that I had been raped, and she told 

my mom that I had definitely been raped. I bled for the next 3 

days. 

At the hospital, there had been a detective, a man that I had 

known my entire life, through my family. He told me that I had 

up to 7 years to decide if I wanted to press charges, because the 

city police had their own full police report, the nurse’s exam with 

photos and all the evidence. The detective told my dad that if his 

own daughter had been raped, he wouldn’t press charges. The detective said that he would just deal with it and move on because 

it wouldn’t get anywhere. The detective told me to think about it. 

Soon after, I rejected a meeting that our church attempted between me and the man who raped me and grew depressed. I was 

also scared that this man would stalk me around town in an attempt to intimidate me. My dad spoke with a friend of the family 

who is still a defense attorney in town, and he told my dad not to 

go through with pressing charges. The attorney said that I had already been raped once and the State court system would just rape 

me again. 

With everyone I respected and trusted telling me not to press 

charges, I decided to wait. By October, 5 months had passed and 

I was no longer feeling scared. I decided to move ahead with the 

charges in March 2004. I was subpoenaed to State court for the 

preliminary hearing. I was the one that had to sit up on the witness stand for two and a half hours, while the defense attorney 

questioned me and my character. It was me up there on the stand 

and not the man who raped me. That was yet again another horrible ordeal in this whole experience. It was a courtroom full of my 

22

family and his, and once again, a bunch of people from my town 

that I had known my whole life, and I was the one made to feel 

ashamed. 

During the trial I had to sit, and we had to make sure that it 

was on State land, we had to determine for a fact that it was State 

land and not tribal land, because in Oklahoma there is no reservation. So you could be, one side of the street is State land and the 

other side is tribal land, so the jurisdiction was an issue that we 

had to determine before the case could even begin. 

A few weeks after the preliminary hearing I was contacted for a 

meeting with the district attorney’s office. They told me that in a 

routine State police cleanup, all of my evidence had been destroyed, 

so it was now a he said/she said case, and they were advising me 

to drop the charges. I asked them what happened, since they told 

me that I had up to 7 years to change my mind. The district attorney said that because I had initially decided not to press charges, 

everything had been destroyed. 

I have not been able to stand up for myself until now. Amnesty 

International has given me support and the opportunity to speak 

up, not only for myself but also in some way for many Native 

American sexual assault survivors who cannot be here today to 

share their stories. There are many discriminatory and jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement response, getting rape 

kits and prosecution in Oklahoma. My story is just one of many. 

I urge you to learn more about stopping sexual assault against 

Native American women. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rozell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMI ROZELL, EDUCATOR, CHEROKEE NATION, OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I would like to submit my full testimony for the record. 

My name is Jami Rozell and I am a Cherokee school teacher from Oklahoma. 

I will always remember the date, Friday May 9th, 2003. I was twenty-one years 

old, in my hometown of Tahlequah Oklahoma and raped by a non Native man I had 

known since junior high. 

I was accompanied that same night to the Indian Health Service hospital in 

Hastings, Oklahoma by my brother, who had called the city police. The Hastings 

hospital was not equipped to do rape exams, so we were then taken to the Tahlequah City hospital next door. 

At the Tahlequah City hospital we waited a couple of hours for the Sexual Assault 

Nurse Examiner to arrive. The hospital had called an advocate from the local sexual 

assault service provider, Help-In-Crisis, to be there with me during the exam. The 

nurse finally arrived and so did the rest of my family. I know that I was fortunate 

to have my family and an advocate with me at this difficult and scary time. This 

is not the case for all Native American women going through an exam or police 

questioning. It was horribly uncomfortable to have a camera inside of me and I was 

grateful to have my family with me at the hospital. The nurse took photos of all 

the bruises, blisters and abrasions inside of me and kept my underwear as evidence. 

My mom asked the nurse if she could clearly tell that I had been raped and she 

told my mom I had definitely been raped. I bled for the next 3 days. 

At the hospital, there had been a detective, a man that I had known my entire 

life through my family. He told me that I had up to 7 years to decide if I wanted 

to press charges because the city police had their own full police report, the nurse’s 

exam with the photos and all the evidence. The detective told my dad that if his 

own daughter had been raped, he wouldn’t press charges. The detective said that 

he would just deal with it and move on because it wouldn’t get anywhere. The detective told me to think about it. 

Soon after, I rejected a meeting that our church attempted between me and the 

man who raped me and grew depressed. I was also scared, as this man would stalk 

me around town in an attempt to intimidate. 

23

My dad spoke with a friend of the family who is still a defense attorney in town 

and he told my dad not to go through with pressing charges. The attorney said that 

I had already been raped once and that the state court system would just rape me 

again. 

With everyone I respected and trusted telling me not to press charges, I decided 

to wait. 

By October, 5 months had passed and I was no longer feeling scared . I decided 

to move ahead with the charges. In March 2004, I was subpoenaed to state court 

for the preliminary hearing. I was the one that had to sit up on the witness stand 

for two and a half hours while the defense attorney questioned me and my character. It was me up there on the stand and not the man who raped me. That was 

yet again another horrible ordeal in this whole experience. It was a courtroom full 

of my family and his, and once again a bunch of people from town I had known 

my whole life. I was made to feel ashamed. 

A few weeks after the preliminary hearing, I was contacted for a meeting at the 

District Attorney’s office. They told me that in a routine state police clean-up, all 

of my evidence had been destroyed so it was now a he-said, she-said case and they 

were advising me to drop the charges. I asked them what had happened since they 

told me that I had up to 7 years to change my mind. The District Attorney said 

that because I had initially decided not to press charges, everything had been destroyed. 

I have not been able to stand up for myself-until now. Amnesty International has 

given me support and the opportunity to speak up not only for myself but also in 

some way for many Native American sexual assault survivors, who can not be here 

today to share their stories. There are many discriminatory and jurisdictional barriers to effective law enforcement response, getting rape kits and prosecution in 

Oklahoma. My story is just one of many. I urge you to learn more about stopping 

sexual assault against Native American women. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rozell, thank you very much. That is not 

easy testimony to offer, but our Committee deeply appreciates your 

being here and participating in this important discussion about a 

very serious issue. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Tammy Young, Co-Director of the 

Alaska Native Women’s Coalition Against Domestic Violence and 

Sexual Assault. Ms. Young, thank you. You have traveled a long 

way and we very much appreciate your being here. 

Senator Murkowski, would you like to say a word about Ms. 

Young? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would join in the welcome of Ms. Young, 

and note that when it comes to community advocates that are making a difference, we are very proud of the efforts that Tammy has 

made in her community and working with so many of the women 

and families that have been afflicted with some very horrible incidents in their lives. I appreciate all that you do, Tammy. Thank 

you, and we are glad that you are here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Young, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TAMMY M. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, ALASKA 

NATIVE WOMEN’S COALITION 

Ms. YOUNG. Thank you. I am very happy to be here this morning. Thank you for inviting me. 

I have submitted written testimony and I just would like to summarize for you. I work with the Alaska Native Women’s Coalition. 

We came into existence in 2001. Since we have been in existence, 

we have been gathering many Alaska Native people and service 

providers all across the State of Alaska. We have had the good fortune to take part in some of the studies that have taken place in 

Alaska, one of them being the Rural Justice and Law Enforcement 

24

Commission, then later taking part in the Domestic Violence Summit that was held in Anchorage. 

Through many of these meetings we have been able to have the 

dialogue to get to what is important to us, those of us that live in 

the very small, rural communities. We have had the good fortune 

of working with the Alaska Naive Justice Center, and Tribal Law 

and Policy Institute in Anchorage to reach into some of those areas 

of concern for us. We have looked at how forensic evidence is gathered, both in hub communities and some of the attempts in village 

communities. 

We would offer as a suggestion to the Committee that there is 

technology available to us now on a more far-reaching range than 

previously the tele-medicine project. In some communities, they are 

using this for mental health concerns. When you have a women or 

a child that is affected by sexual violence, these are long-term medical issues. So we are very interested in seeking solutions that address not only the immediate concern, the medical concerns such 

as emergency contraceptives, screening for sexually transmitted 

diseases, but we are also interested in seeking solutions for the 

long-term health care that is needed. 

We also feel that this would be an avenue that we could help our 

men, possibly through the Batterers Reeducation Program. Many 

people in small communities don’t have access to the Batterers Reeducation. In our view, in our customary and traditional ways, we 

are hoping that all of our family members will have the opportunity to be provided services. This is what in some ways sets us 

apart from non-Native agencies or non-Native communities. 

We are not necessarily seeking that our tribal members be cast 

off into jail or places like that, although there are some tribes that 

are seeking banishment as an option. What we are hoping for is 

healing, because we believe that domestic violence and sexual assault came into our communities as an effective of colonization and 

oppression. 

When you look at our very small communities, they are still very 

dependent on subsistence. It is very much a part of our lifestyle to 

gather and be close to the earth. But we also are faced with the 

challenges of not being able to receive the transportation needed to 

go in for exams. Oftentimes the weather will keep law enforcement 

from responding to very critical situations. As part of our testimony, we did submit all of the newspaper articles for the last several years that document who our perpetrators are. In many instances they are the very people that we are told to call upon for 

help. 

Not too long ago, a young woman was shot in the back of her 

head up in the Nome area. It later turned out that she was shot 

by an Alaska State trooper. Many of our women are dependent 

upon their very small community response that could happen. 

Sometimes this does involve going to clergy. And if you review 

these articles, you will see that in many situations clergy have 

been a part of the problem as well. 

The Alaska Native Women’s Coalition has been trying to meet 

with tribal leaders to discuss further options. Many times they are 

suggesting to us that not only law enforcement, to be able to come 

out, but also they are talking about solutions through tribal court. 

25

In our small villages, tribal court sometimes consists of our tribal 

councils. In other situations, it is just a small body of elders. 

So these are some of the areas that we are looking to for solutions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Young follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TAMMY M. YOUNG, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN’S

COALITION

On behalf of Alaska Native Women and children that are in need of safety, we 

would like to thank you for your leadership in the reauthorization of the Violence 

Against Women Act (VAWA). We believe that it is imperative that the implementation of VAWA is achieved specifically, we seek your full support and advocacy for 

the Tribal Title IX—Safety for Indian Women. 

The Alaska Native Women’s Coalition (ANWC) is a statewide non-profit grassroots coalition whose goal is to provide a unified voice for Alaskan Natives against 

domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Our membership is comprised of 

Alaska Native women who are both survivors of violence and advocates for safety 

from such violence. The coalition members include men and women from around the 

state in rural communities—we are first responders, health care workers, tribal 

chiefs and administrators, shelter workers, and other concerned community members. ANWC provides direct victim services, court advocacy, shelter services, and 

training for tribal specific issues, among other things. Over the last several years 

the Alaska Native Women’s Coalition has worked to increase the safety of Alaska 

Native women through gatherings on the regional and statewide level, including 

local resources and state resources to dialog potential solutions and enhance current 

systemic responses. 

The danger Alaska Native women face is disproportionately higher than any other 

population in the United States. 

STATISTICS

• Alaska reported 83.5 rapes per 100,000 females compared to a U.S. average of 

31.7 rapes per 100,000.

• Reported cases of domestic violence in Anchorage alone increased by 120 percent.

• Alaska Natives make up 8 percent of the total population of Anchorage yet the 

percentage of Alaska Native victims was 24 percent.

• Alaska has one of the highest per capita rates of physical and sexual abuse in 

the Nation.

• In an informal poll taken in one of the off road communities, 100 percent of the 

women there are or have been a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or 

stalking.

The underlying issues for this rate of victimization are extremely complex. In 

light of this we greatly appreciate your concern for and support of Alaska Native 

Women. 

The VAWA 1994 and 2000 recognized the importance of addressing the unique circumstances of Native women. This historic legislation has not only saved lives but 

has restored hope for hundreds of our Sisters seeking safety from perpetrators of 

domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Unfortunately, we also must face 

the reality that many women lost their lives to such violence over the last several 

years. The 2005 VAWA legislation contained specific sections addressing the safety 

of American Indian and Alaska Native women primarily providing a tribal set aside. 

The Tribal Title addresses specific issues impacting the safety of Native women. Each 

component represents an essential step forward in enhancing the safety of American 

Indian and Alaska Native Women.

In reviewing the Bureau of Justice Statistics report titled ‘‘American Indians 

and Crime 1992–2002’’ the findings reveal a disturbing picture of the victimization of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The rate of violent crime estimated from self reported victimizations for American Indians is well above that 

of other U.S. racial or ethnic groups and is more than twice the national average. This disparity in the rates of exposure to violence affecting American Indians occurs across age groups, housing locations, and by gender. American Indians are more likely than people of other races to experience violence at the 

hands of someone of a different race, and the criminal victimizer is more likely 

to have consumed alcohol preceding the offense. Among American Indian vicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
26

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics—‘‘American Indians and Crime 1992–2002.’’

tims of violence, the offender was more likely to be a stranger than an intimate 

partner, family member, or acquaintance. Strangers committed 42 percent of 

the violent crimes against American Indians during 1992–2001. An acquaintance committed about 1 in 3 of the violent victimizations against American Indians. About 1 in 5 violent victimizations among American Indians involved an 

offender who was an intimate or family member of the victim. 1

• Rates of violent victimization for both males and females were higher for American Indians than for all races.

• American Indian females were less likely to be victims compared to American 

Indian males.

• The rate of violent victimization among American Indian women was more than 

double that among all women.

• American Indians were more likely to be victims of assault and rape/sexual assault committed by a stranger or acquaintance rather than an intimate partner 

or family member.

• Approximately 60 percent of American Indian victims of violence, about the 

same percentage as of all victims of violence, described the offender as white.

Under Title II, Improving Services for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking, there are new opportunities through the Sexual Assault Services 

Program that ANWC is in full support of. These new provisions will improve the 

lives of women and children across the nation, and create new opportunities for 

women to access services. Because of the rates of rape and sexual assault in Alaska 

these services are essential from a health care perspective. 

There are many obstacles that we face in our attempts to create a coordinated 

community response (CCR) that is Alaskan Native specific. The primary obstacle is 

the lack of resources at the village level. While our Lower ’48 and urban counterparts are considering non-profit victim advocacy agencies, health care, social services, and criminal justice systems in their development of a CCR, most Native Alaskan communities do not have the luxury of these resources. In many villages to 

have a health aide practitioner and the tribal councils who act as the tribal court, 

are the community resources, additionally 75 of the 229 villages have an on-site Village Public Safety Officer or Village Peace Officer. The Village Public Safety Officer 

(VPSO) has limited authority and no place for detention of perpetrators in most situations. Approximately 40 percent of these 229 villages have no form of local law 

enforcement present in their community. The challenge for these communities lies 

in getting together a team of people who can be as impartial as possible while dealing with relatives, friends, and acquaintances in incidents of violence against women 

and children. Community members need to set the standard of behavior and create 

community based solutions that restore their customary and traditional means of 

living in non-violence. 

Violence against women and children are being perpetuated in communities 

where there exists no form of law enforcement and no local infrastructure to address 

these incidents. These facts create the dangerous reality that frequently the only 

people standing between women in need of protection from a batterer or rapist is 

the local community. Consequently, the life of a woman depends largely on the local 

community’s ability to provide immediate assistance. Given the extreme danger created by such abusers and the remote isolation of women, communities must develop 

their own village specific program utilizing their existing local resources. The development of this local response is the only assurance that women and often times 

their children in rural Alaska are provided with the basic human right to safety. 

Although reporting has increased, victim safety, batterer accountability and stalking still remains a big problem. Just last year in one of our smaller villages where 

there exists no form of law enforcement and where there exists no infrastructure 

to provide for the basic safety of women and children, a woman was shot and killed 

by her partner in a domestic abuse incident. In yet another incident in yet another 

off road community, a woman was shot and killed while her children stood helplessly by and watched. This is becoming an all too common scenario for rural Alaska. 

When an incident is reported and no one responds, this sends a clear message to 

the perpetrator and the community that violence against women is both tolerated 

and accepted. While there can be many reasons that law enforcement doesn’t respond, such as weather, funding, man power and other reasons, the bottom line for 

27

women and children in rural Alaska is they are not safe in their own homes and 

communities. 

ANWC have been hosting conferences, meetings and teleconferencing through 

which we have had many conversations with villages on what challenges and issues 

they perceive as being prevalent. Through these consistent dialogues we have 

ascertained that the unique issues encountered in rural Native villages in Alaska 

are not being addressed. Amongst the key challenges are the fact that ninety of the 

229 communities across the state are without any form of law enforcement and no 

basic infrastructure to address the incidents of violence that is happening in their 

community. When there has been a perpetrator that has been through the legal justice system in the community this creates other, as of yet unresolved issues that 

overflow, into the community. Perpetrators that are directed to Batterer’s Re-Education as a part of their sentence, often in rural communities don’t have a program 

available to them and the costs of living in another community and maintaining 

their home and family, result in many non-compliant offenders. ANWC is working 

toward several distance delivery methods and hope to be a part of the solution for 

access to services for our rural communities. 

Victims are being re victimized at an alarming rate mostly due to the fact that 

Native women from remote Alaskan villages have no knowledge of the westernized 

judiciary system. They are losing their children, their jobs, their homes, and forced 

to leave their villages and culture due to the fact that they choose to leave an abusive relationship or because they are in one. 

We are aware of how much time and effort has gone into each of the sections of 

the reauthorization language and rather than try to seek specific sections that we 

support, we choose to limit our comments because each section will improve areas 

of need for different parts of the U.S., including Indian Country. We do have a couple of comments that we hope will contribute further to improvements for Alaska 

Native victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Emergency services are only 

one area of need. 

1. Title VI—Housing Opportunities and Safety for Battered Women and 

Children. 

Title VI, Sec. 602. Request for more shelters for Alaska Native victims of domestic 

violence and sexual assault. 

While the rate of victimization is higher than any other population of women in 

the United States, funding for essential life saving services are inadequate. One example of this is the lack of crisis services, such as shelters and rape crisis services 

which serve the disproportionately large population of Alaska Native women victimized (see statistics above.) And, there are only two Native run shelter programs 

within the State of Alaska-one in Emmonak and ANWC’s Interior Alaska based 

shelter, ‘‘Denaa Tsoo Yuh’’ (Koyukon Athabascan for Our Grandma’s House), opened 

in January 2005. 

Very few rape crisis/sexual assault services programs operate to serve specifically 

Alaska Native women. Culturally specific services are essential because we know 

that generally Alaska Native women prefer and frequently will not use services that 

are not designed to address their beliefs, customs and traditions. 

2. Title I—Enhancing Judicial and Law Enforcement Tools to Combat Violence Against Women. 

ANWC fully supports Title I, Sec. 101 (f)(i)(2), ensuring that training and technical assistance will be developed and provided by entities having expertise in tribal 

law and culture. This same message was echoed at our Statewide conference in Anchorage May 24–26, 2005 and again in June of 2006. Such grassroots participation 

is what makes a community’s efforts successful and ultimately protects women and 

children from domestic violence and sexual assault. 

We request your full support for the provision of technical assistance, as mentioned throughout the Bill, and ask that the technical assistance be provided by 

those with culturally specific knowledge. There are many excellent additions to the 

reauthorization of VAWA 2005 that will benefit women across the country. ANWC 

fully supports the Tribal Title IX, which includes vital provisions that will ensure 

that all perpetrators of violent crimes committed against Indian women are held accountable for their crimes; increase research on violence against Indian women; and 

establishes a national tribal sex offender registry, as well as ensuring that tribes 

have an opportunity to address violence in their communities through the 10 percent tribal set aside. In order to continue the progress of the past thirteen years 

since the initial passage of VAWA, we must continue to dedicate our resources to 

addressing the issues, most especially for those that are still affected by violence 

each day. We appreciate that the Tribal Title IX—Safety for Indian Women was inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 11, 2007 Jkt 039355 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39355.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
28

cluded in the reauthorization of VAWA. For small communities to have access to 

Federal funding is imperative to providing for all women and children to have the 

basic human right to safety. Thank you for all your support and dedication to seek 

resources and resolutions for the ‘‘Backbone of our Nations’’ our women. 

Please feel free to contact Tammy Young, Director if the Alaska Native Women’s 

Coalition can be of any assistance. 

Attachments 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the work being accomplished 

by tribes across the country. The Native Village of Anvik has throughout the years 

been responsibly addressing issues that are of concern for many villages and tribes 

including the safety and wellbeing of our women and children. We are a village of 

approximately 800 with only a small handful (25) from outside, but coexisting within the confines of village life. We live on the Yukon River, which is our main source 

of food and transportation to other villages. Our nearest village is blank miles, with 

such and so services. We are neighbors with blank villages and rely on each other 

in times of need. Village life is cyclical in tune with nature; we survive in the ways 

of our ancestors, from generation to generation. We can trace back in history and 

pinpoint the intrusion of violence into our communities and the methods that have 

held strong to facilitate the ongoing destruction of healthy lives and families. We 

are part of a much larger picture as well, below you will see that there are many 

other villages and urban relatives that need time and attention for their unique 

needs and barriers. Alaska covers an area of 586,412 square miles in the northern 

part of the United States. The total population of the state is 622,000 of which approximately 98,043 are Alaska Natives living in either the urban areas or the in 

the 229 tribal communities across the state. In the most recent studies conducted 

by service providers in Alaska, violence against women and children ranked 

amongst the highest in the social problems that currently plagues our native communities. Alaska has the highest rates of sexual abuse nationally and one of the 

highest per capita rates of physical abuse in the nation. In Anchorage alone from 

1989 to 1998, reported cases of domestic violence increased by 120 percent. The percentage of Alaska Native victims in Anchorage was 24 percent, which is extremely 

high when one takes into consideration that Alaska Natives comprise only 8 percent 

of the Anchorage population. Alaska is home to 229 tribes. Of these 229 tribes, 165 

are off road communities meaning that the only way in and out is by air. Ninetyfive of these off road communities also do not have any form of law enforcement. 

Violence against women and children are being perpetuated in communities where 

there exists no form of law enforcement and no local infrastructure to address these 

incidents. These facts create the dangerous reality that frequently the only people 

standing between women in need of protection from a batterer or rapist is the local 

community. Consequently, the life of a woman depends largely on the local communities ability to provide immediate assistance. Given the extreme danger created by 

such abusers and the remote isolation of women, communities must develop their 

own village specific program utilizing their existing local resources. The development of this local response is the only assurance that women and often times their 

children in rural Alaska are provided with the basic human right to safety. 

Although reporting has increased, victim safety, batterer accountability and stalking still remains a big problem. This same time last year in one of our smaller villages where there exists no form of law enforcement and where there is no infrastructure on site to provide for the basic safety of women and children, a woman 

was shot and killed by her partner in a domestic violence incident. This is becoming 

an all too common scenario for rural Alaska. Murder and Suicide are very serious 

situations that any prevention efforts would undoubtably save lives. When an incident is reported and no one responds, this sends a clear message to the perpetrator 

and the community that violence against women is both tolerated and accepted.

1 of 3 American Indian and Alaskan Native women are raped in their lifetime, 

and American Indian and Alaska Native women experience 7 sexual assaults 

per 1,000 compared to 4 per 1,000 among Black Americans, 3 per 1,000 among 

Caucasians, 2 per 1,000 among Hispanic women and 1 per 1,000 among Asian 

Americans.

According to the November 2000 National Institute of Justice Report.

About 8 in 10 American Indian and Alaska Native victims of rape or sexual assault were estimated to have assailants who were White or Black.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice—American Indians and Crime Report from 1999.

29

The Village of Anvik is thankful for the unique legal relationship between the 

U.S. and Indian Tribes and trusts that the federal trust responsibility to safeguard 

the lives of American Indian and Alaska Native women through collaborative efforts 

between the Federal Government and small tribes like Anvik will continue. That 

continued support of sovereign efforts to provide for the basic necessity of safety for 

women fleeing life threatening situations through grants will be a continued effort 

of safeguarding the future of Indigenous nations. 

Anvik will continue to build their capacity to preserve the safety, integrity, and 

well being of its members, especially the sacred status of our women to live in an 

environment free of violence and sexual assault. 

SURVIVOR STORIES FROM ALASKA LOCATED IN TRIBAL COMMUNITIES—PRESENTED AS

ORAL TESTIMONY TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS—SEPTEMBER 25, 

2007

Two adult tribal women, who wish to remain anonymous, have agreed to share 

their experiences with the understanding that their locations and identities will be 

kept confidential. Each live in one of the 95 villages in Alaska that have no immediate form of law enforcement. These women have entrusted their stories here for 

the benefit of understanding the level of danger and the circumstances that exists. 

Surviving the event with minimal support from outside of their village. These 

women entrusted the telling of their reality, with Tami Jerue of Alaska Native 

Women’s Coalition. 

The first woman is married with several children between the ages of 5 and 13; 

she was visiting in a nearby community from her home. She was asleep, when the 

perpetrator broke into her family’s home. She knew this person; he raped her and 

threatened her family if she did not keep quiet. After a few days she told her husband and other family members. They told her to call the Troopers. There is a 

Trooper post some 100 to 200 air miles away from the village. She did call and reported this incident, in detail also told Troopers who had attacked her. They did not 

come out to interview her, and there has been no follow up. The perpetrator is still 

walking around in the village. This incident happened over one year ago. 

The second woman, had been drinking in her home with her partner, there were 

other people drinking with them. She passed out, and woke up to find one of the 

men who had been drinking in the house with them, was trying to take down her 

pants. She jumped up and started screaming, she then woke up her partner, who 

refused or was incapable of doing anything to respond. She called someone she considered to be safe that was in the community to help her. She was picked up and 

taken to that person’s house. They called the Troopers, again in a hub community 

a few hundred miles away to report the incident. This perpetrator has been known 

to do this type of thing around the community, however has never been convicted. 

Troopers did not come to investigate and the perpetrator still walks around free. 

The woman now says ‘‘why bother to call, nothing ever happens.’’

In the following statement from a mental health professional in rural Alaska. 

A number of studies regarding sexual assault in the United Sates indicate that 

one in three females and one in five males are sexual assaulted before they are 

eighteen years of age. Although generally not identified as such this rate of sexual 

assault has serious and long lasting mental and physical health ramifications. 

A recent report by the Alaska Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 

indicates that the Alaska rate of sexual abuse of children is six times that of the 

lower forty-eight, a statistic which should receive the alarming attention of both 

governmental and health officials because of its epidemic proportions. 

I have been a mental health professional in rural Alaska for more than five years. 

Personal observations and discussions with various clinicians around the State of 

Alaska has led me to believe that many of the serious issues put forth in the Amnesty International report have actually been minimized. From my own experience 

the response time of the State Troopers or even OCS to an incident of reported child 

abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault has been slow or in some cases nonexistent. 

I have witnessed a judicial system order more time in jail for burglary than the 

rape of a young girl over a four year period. Because of these types of incidents trust 

in the system at large is minimal by community members in much of rural Alaska. 

The result of this lack of trust leads to frustration and to gross underreporting of 

incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault. In the community I work in I 

would estimate that ninety per-cent of the domestic violence and sexual assault goes 

unreported to law enforcement. 

30

Although this information only touches the surface of the problem of sexual assault in rural Alaska it is my hope that it provides at least some incentive for governmental, law enforcement and health officials to act in a responsible manner to 

guarantee the safety and welfare of Native women and children throughout this 

state. 

Name withheld by request due to the confidential nature of some of the above information. 

ARTIST SUES POLICE OVER RAPE CASE

SILOOK: WOMAN SAYS NOT EVEN TOKEN ATTEMPT’ MADE TO FIND RAPIST. 

ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS (PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 8, 2001) 

By Sheila Toomey And Lisa Demer 

A well-known local artist says police officers who took her into protective custody 

while she was in an alcoholic blackout failed to notice she had been raped because 

they are prejudiced against intoxicated Alaska Native women. 

In a lawsuit filed two years after the September 1999 incident, Susie Silook says 

once the assault on her was medically confirmed, the Anchorage Police Department 

failed to seriously investigate it. 

Silook is asking for monetary damages and an order directing the city to train 

its personnel to deal with such situations. 

Police spokesman Ron McGee said Wednesday that the department never comments on pending litigation. In court papers, the city’s legal staff has asked that 

the suit be dismissed on a number of grounds, but has not given its version of 

events. Municipal Attorney Bill Greene said the case is in early stages and comment 

on the facts would be inappropriate. 

According to Silook’s complaint, and police reports she provided to reporters, she 

had been drinking at a number of downtown bars and a restaurant on September 

19, 1999, and doesn’t remember how she ended up at Chilkoot Charlie’s in Spenard. 

Sometime that night, she was raped, the suit says. But Silook had no memory 

of it and did not report it to anyone that night. 

At some point, Chilkoot’s called the police to remove her, apparently because she 

was being disruptive. Silook was taken to jail, not under arrest, just to sober up. 

When she arrived, she had bruises on her arms and blood in the crotch area of her 

pants. 

It is unclear if she told police and corrections officers that she had her period, or 

if they assumed that. Either way, it was ‘‘deliberately indifferent’’ and ‘‘reckless’’ of 

city officials not to seek a medical evaluation of possible injuries, the suit says. 

Two days later, after she had bathed and thrown away the bloody clothes, a doctor determined that Silook had been raped with an object. The bleeding was caused 

by a tear in her vagina, the suit says. 

At that point, police initiated a rape investigation, but failed to do all they could 

to identify her assailant, the suit says. 

Police reports indicate an investigator subpoenaed security tapes from Chilkoot’s 

and interviewed several people, including Silook’s boyfriend, about events that 

night. 

The attitude of police toward Native women who become crime victims while 

drunk has been publicly questioned by activist groups over the past year, following 

a series of unsolved homicides of minority women and the capture of a serial rapist 

whose victims were mostly Native. 

Police have responded that criminals seek out vulnerable victims and that rape 

cases where a victim does not remember the attack or attacker, or where there is 

no physical evidence, are very difficult to solve and prosecute. Investigators do the 

best they can, police have said. 

In an interview earlier this week, Silook said police, jail officials and staff at 

Chilkoot Charlie’s all should have noticed and investigated the source of blood visible on her blue jeans that night. Police should have immediately interviewed everyone they could find from Chilkoot’s as soon as they knew they were dealing with 

a rape. 

‘‘I understand these cases are difficult,’’ Silook said. ‘‘But I don’t think they are 

impossible. There wasn’t even a token attempt, I feel, to find out what happened 

to me.’’

In May, Silook gathered her anger and images documenting her rape experience 

into a multimedia art exhibition, called ‘‘Protective Custody.’’

31

‘‘I did that show hoping to get more police involvement in the cases of rapes and 

murders of Native women,’’ she said. This week she is in Indianapolis at an exhibition of her work and that of other Native American artists, part of a fellowship 

that also includes a $20,000 award. 

Silook said the rape and its aftermath occurred while she was still drinking. She 

has been sober for more than a year, she said. 

RAPIST DEALT 30 YEARS

DEAL JURY TRIAL FOR MAN WHO RAPED FIVE NATIVE WOMEN WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO

RISKY, JUDGE SAYS. 

ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS (PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 9, 2002) 

By Sheila Toomey 

Serial rapist Gregory Poindexter was sentenced Friday to 30 years in prison after 

a Superior Court judge decided a deal with the state was in the best interests of 

his victims and the community. 

In a packed, silent courtroom filled with supporters of the five Native victims, 

Judge Elaine Andrews took nearly an hour to explain why she was accepting a deal 

that many in the audience were opposed to. 

If jurors had convicted Poindexter of all 18 original charges, Andrews said she 

might have been able to give him 40 years without risking reversal on appeal. But 

guilty verdicts are not a sure thing, she said, and the state isn’t sure the victims 

or the evidence could withstand the pressure of multiple trials with aggressive 

cross-examination. 

Accepting Poindexter’s plea in return for a 30-year cap on his sentence ends the 

risk that he might be back on the street in a few years. 

‘‘I have the perhaps unfortunate job to weigh evil,’’ Andrews said. 

Poindexter, 31, is a tall, beefy man, his physique suggesting a football player 

going soft. In court Friday he wore jailhouse ‘‘reds,’’ which are reserved for troublemakers, instead of the usual blue uniform. He sat unmoving in his chair for most 

of the hearing, shackled hand and foot, eyes forward and mostly shut, not looking 

as two of his victims took turns at a podium and told Andrews about the rapes and 

beatings. 

The only word he spoke was ‘‘no,’’ when Andrews asked if he wanted to say anything. 

The five women were raped between August 2000 and January 2001 in a series 

of attacks that escalated in violence. Poindexter began by offering victims rides, 

then began ‘‘scooping them’’ into his car and beating as well as raping them, Andrews said. One woman said her face was so damaged she still has double vision 

and needs more surgery. 

‘‘I felt every negative emotion a person can feel,’’ she told the judge. ‘‘I wanted 

this so much to be a bad dream I wake up from.’’

‘‘This man tortured me for three hours,’’ said another victim. ‘‘I have terrible 

nightmares and flashbacks.... This evil man hurt us all.’’ She asked Andrews to 

sentence Poindexter to ‘‘a hundred years and one day.’’

Originally indicted on 18 charges, Poindexter pleaded no contest in September to 

one count of sexual assault of five women, and one count of kidnapping three of the 

women. 

Assistant district attorney Rachel Gernat and defense attorney Craig Howard 

both urged Andrews to accept the 30-year deal. 

The prosecution has problems with some of the cases, Gernat said. There is some 

evidence to support each charge, but perhaps not enough to convince a jury beyond 

a reasonable doubt, she said. 

If the state could try the cases all at once, jurors could probably ‘‘put the puzzle 

together,’’ Gernat said. But the defense would fight to have at least two trials, one 

for cases that include a kidnapping charge and one for cases that don’t. 

The rapes are ‘‘a horrifying event that still haunts’’ the victims, Gernat said. They 

told their stories to a grand jury, and the state doesn’t want to make them testify 

again to another room full of strangers. 

Howard pointed out that most of the victims were drunk and had trouble identifying their attacker. If the cases go to trial, it ‘‘would be a battle royale... these 

women would have to be subject to vigorous cross-examination’’ on issues like identity and consent. Given their intoxication at the time, they probably wouldn’t be 

very good witnesses, Howard said. 

32

‘‘I’m not inexperienced in court. If I have to, I will use whatever abilities I have 

to acquit Mr. Poindexter.’’

Howard also challenged anyone who suggested 30 years was a light sentence. Gesturing to the spectators, he said, ‘‘I know the people behind me think he’s getting 

some kind of sweetheart deal. He’s not.’’

In addition to 30 years to serve, Andrews sentenced Poindexter to an additional 

35 years of suspended time and 10 years’ probation after he gets out of prison. He 

can be forced to serve the suspended time if he violates probation. 

Unlike most criminals who come before her, Andrews said, nothing in Poindexter’s 

past suggested he would turn out to be a serial rapist. He has a domestic violence 

conviction and committed a burglary that involved taking a can of coins from a 

friend’s house. 

She ordered him to complete sex offender treatment while in prison and warned 

he could lose his ‘‘good time’’ of about 10 years if he doesn’t. 

After Poindexter was taken away, many spectators gathered downstairs in the 

foyer of the courthouse for a drumming and chanting circle, dedicated to 

Poindexter’s victims and to a group of Anchorage Native women whose murders remain unsolved, said Denise Morris, head of the Alaska Native Justice Center, who 

helped organize the turnout. 

Ida Nelson, one of the drummers and a friend of some victims, laced into Howard’s remarks, calling them racist. ‘‘I think Poindexter targeted Native women because he knew no one would stand up for them,’’ Nelson said. 

Despite the wish that Poindexter would be sentenced more harshly, the victims 

and their friends seemed relieved the case was finished and the culprit punished. 

Morris commended Andrews for taking the time to explain ‘‘the reasons and rationale for the sentence. I felt it was probably reasonable based on the information she 

gave,’’ Morris said. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE DOCTORS DISCIPLINED FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

AP, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Matt Kelley, Associated Press Writer 

Washington (AP)— Dr. Thomas W. Michaelis spent two months in an Ohio prison 

in 1991 for trying to molest four teen-age girls. 

He then worked for eight years as an obstetrician-gynecologist in an Indian 

Health Service hospital in Arizona, paid $101,000 a year by the government despite 

a law barring the hiring of sex offenders in agencies serving American Indians. 

IHS officials fired Michaelis last year. By then, he had examined hundreds of 

women at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center after registering with local authorities 

as a sex offender. 

Michaelis said he told IHS officials about his convictions for attempted molestation, but the agency hired him in 1993 anyway. 

‘‘They knew about it up front,’’ Michaelis said. ‘‘I guess they needed a doctor eight 

years ago.’’

At least 21 doctors who worked for the IHS between 1996 and 2001 have been 

punished or denied licenses by state medical boards for offenses ranging from abusing drugs to neglecting patients who later died, an Associated Press review of disciplinary records found. 

Dr. Richard Chilian, a surgeon, had his North Dakota license suspended in 1997 

and then reinstated with restrictions after he took 20 tablets of the anti-depressant 

Wellbutrin and became so disoriented he couldn’t complete a surgery, according to 

North Dakota medical board records. 

Chilian now makes $90,549 at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center. He said the 

North Dakota incident resulted from depression and IHS officials knew that. 

‘‘They knew all about it, 100 percent,’’ Chilian said. ‘‘There was never any attempt 

to cover things up.’’

Officials at IHS, the federal agency charged with providing care to 1.5 million 

American Indians, acknowledge that background checks on their doctors are often 

inadequate. It’s just one of many problems they blame on a lack of money. 

‘‘In general, there is no secretarial staff to support the medical staff activities,’’ 

said Dr. Craig Vanderwagen, the agency’s chief medical officer. 

‘‘Many of our people are seeing 40 patients a day or so. Then, your attention to 

take care of that (background check) paperwork goes right out the window,’’ he said. 

Several sanctioned doctors told AP that IHS officials knew about their backgrounds before they were hired. Documents from the State Medical Board of Ohio 

show IHS requested, and Ohio sent, records detailing Michaelis’ crimes. 

33

IHS officials rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from AP for records 

detailing what they knew before Michaelis was hired. Likewise, IHS officials declined to discuss any specific disciplined doctors, citing privacy concerns. 

IHS managers have the power to hire doctors despite past troubles as they try 

to fill vacancies that include more than 10 percent of their physician jobs. 

Vanderwagen said recruiting IHS doctors is often difficult, especially for relatively 

low-paying jobs on the most remote, poverty-ravaged Indian reservations. 

Records show about 2.6 percent of IHS doctors have been punished by state 

boards—a rate more than four times the average for all government doctors and the 

highest of any federal agency. 

In contrast, just 0.5 percent of doctors who provide care to military veterans at 

Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals have ever been disciplined. 

The IHS discipline rate is about the same as the national average for all doctors. 

But critics say the federal agency has an obligation to do better—especially because 

Indians have suffered from substandard health care for more than a century and 

are vulnerable. 

‘‘There are perpetrators out there who tend to look for the state or county or federal systems that have loopholes,’’ said Yvette Joseph-Fox, executive director of the 

National Indian Health Board, which represents tribal health officials. 

‘‘We’ve been haunted by these problems for more than a hundred years... and 

for some strange reason, the perpetrators know that,’’ she said. 

AP identified 21 disciplined IHS doctors through state medical board files and a 

database of punished doctors compiled by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. 

IHS doctors need only be licensed to practice medicine in one state, not the one 

where they work. 

For instance, Michaelis relied on his Ohio medical license even though Arizona 

rejected his application. That means the only place Michaelis could practice in Arizona was a federal facility like an IHS hospital. 

Dr. Michael D. Cerny’s medical licenses have been revoked, denied or suspended 

in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Illinois for drug problems and for tearing a woman’s bladder during a hysterectomy, according to records from the states’ medical 

boards. 

Cerny now practices at the IHS hospital in Pine Ridge, S.D., earning more than $103,000 a year. He holds a valid medical license in Georgia. 

Cerny did not return repeated calls to his office and home seeking comment. Neither did Pine Ridge hospital administrator Vern Donnell. 

Dr. Paula J. Colescott surrendered her Colorado medical license in 1995 after she 

admitted having sex with a 19-year-old patient, according to Colorado State Board 

of Medical Examiners records. She also was reprimanded in 1991 for a similar sexual relationship with another patient, medical board records show. Colescott, who now makes $98,310 a year at the Alaska Native Medical Center 

in Anchorage, said she was upset by news coverage of the 1995 case. 

‘‘So you’re going to publish again, and publicly humiliate me again?’’ Colescott 

said when interviewed. ‘‘You never let it die, do you guys? No, I am not willing to 

comment.’’

In a written statement, Paul Sherry, chief executive of the tribal consortium that 

runs the Alaska hospital, said Colescott ‘‘meets all of the requirements of the Medical Bylaws and Rules and Regulations to practice as a licensed physician.’’

Several other submitted articles have been retained in Committee files and can 

be found at:

http://www.tribalnews.com/

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/1702898p-1819699c.html

http://IndianCountry.com/?1054649768

http://www.adn.com/front/story/4325477p-4335352c.html

http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/just/rlinks/natives/index.html

http://www.adn.com/alaska/v-printer/story/4341644p-4350579c.html

http://www.adn.com/alaska/v-printer/story/4346810p-4355897c.html

http://www.adn.com/front/v-printer/story/4416837p-4409063c.html

http://www.adn.com/alaska/v-printer/story/4715310p-4665337c.html

http://www.indianz.com/News/archives/003731.asp

http://www.adn.com/alaskalap/story/4820606p-4760255c.html

http://nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&articlelid=4016

34

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4982516p-4910648c.html

http://www.adn.com/alaskalap/story/5081646p-5009291c.html

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/f204wi04/alrapes.html

http://www.adn.com/front/v-printer/story/5791918p-5725475c.html

http://www.adn.com/alaska/v-printer/story/6038774p-5928127c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-printer/story/6203267p-6077492c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/v-printer/story/6222713p-6097351c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6335640p-6212250c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6563826p-6446635c.html

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/082405/082405lsentenced.html

http://www.sitnews.us/0805news/082405/082405lsentenced.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7130591p-7039083c.html

http://www.adn.com/front/story/7176631p-7086347c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7202199p-7113837c.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mealaskaside19nov19,1,7797805.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/aplalaska/story/7617975p-7529778c.html

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/7638373p-7549948c.html

http://www.indianz.com/News/2006/014829.asp

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/215350.pdf

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/8218160p-8115089c.html

http://www.homernews.com/stories/012307/newsl1001.shtml

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/aplalaska/story/8686257p-8583319c.html

Submitted copies of the Alaska Justice Forum (Vol. 24, No. 1) and the Alaska 

Rural Justice and Law Enforcement Commission 2006 Initial Report and Recommendations are printed in the appendix.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Young, thank you very much for being with 

us today. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Karen Artichoker, who comes to us 

from Rapid City, South Dakota, Director of the Sacred Circle, Inc. 

Ms. Artichoker, thank you very much. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN ARTICHOKER, DIRECTOR, SACRED 

CIRCLE NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER TO END VIOLENCE 

AGAINST NATIVE WOMEN 

Ms. ARTICHOKER. Good morning. I would like to extend a heartfelt handshake to each of you, and especially to Senator Johnson. 

Many prayers were said for you and it is good to see you looking 

so well. 

I am the Director of Sacred Circle, which is a national resource 

center to end violence against Native women, funded through the 

Violence Against Women Act. But I also am a Management Team 

Director for Cangleska, Inc. on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, 

home of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and we are a private, non-profit 

organization. 

I am so pleased that obviously you all are becoming more and 

more educated about this issue and I agree that it is the rare Indian woman who has escaped some form of sexual violence in her 

life. We believe the statistics are low, very low, and do not reflect 

the reality of the average Native woman. 

I want to talk some about our local program and what we have 

encountered, and in the way of our people, say it is not our intention to offend anyone. I think we are aware that there are some 

35

big problems here. And when we look at the processes, and I am 

so pleased that we are looking at the processes, because some of 

these things I am wondering could possibly be changed quite simply, with some simple, simple adjustments. And one of those I believe needs to be attitude and priority. 

In working with Federal officials, we have encountered an attitude that often alcohol is involved and so that seems to diminish 

and negate the seriousness of the crime and the potential for prosecution. So when we look at sexual violence, then, for us as local 

women, we are looking at how do we work with the Federal system 

and create reforms in that system, look at law enforcement response throughout the woman’s experience dealing with local, tribal, police officer, BIA criminal investigator at the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, and of course the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It brings 

to my mind Victoria Eagleman, on the Lower Brule Reservation, 

who was murdered. And the family reported her missing, while the 

Federal officials did not get involved because she was not officially, 

there was no crime that had been committed. 

So no Federal people were involved, the local police were looking 

for her, the family started talking to the Bureau, criminal investigators. They said, oh, you know, here’s alcohol, she drinks, she 

probably just took off with some guy. She probably just headed out 

and she will be back. The FBI kept saying, there is no evidence of 

a crime. 

Well, finally, the community rallied and they searched, horseback, ATVs, boats, because they are water people, the community 

found her, 28 days later, her nude body stuffed in a culvert a few 

miles out of town. The family of course devastated, known all along 

that something bad had happened, and her body, this is the particularly egregious part for me, her body was sent to Sturgis for autopsy, the FBI accompanied her because she was evidence. But 

once the autopsy was performed, and the evidence was obtained, 

then they were out of it. And the family was responsible, and they 

were unable to bring her body back. So they agreed to cremation 

and she was sent home via U.S. Postal Service, which was very, 

very counter to our culture and respect for our family members 

who have passed on. 

So for us, we are looking at, we would like to build the capacity 

of our local communities and our local response. We don’t believe 

our tribal criminal justice system is broken, it never worked in the 

first place. It has never had the opportunity to work. We are interested in talking about Federal reforms and how we can build the 

capacity of our local communities and develop community-based solutions, so that maybe we can prevent State and Federal interventions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Artichoker follows:]

36

1 National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women; National Congress of American Indians Task Force to End Violence Against Native Women; U.S. Department 

Of Justice Global Advisory Committee; U.S. Department Of Justice Working Group on Federal 

Tribal Sexual Assault Response; Full Faith and Credit Project; Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Curriculum Working Group; American Probation and Parole Association Model Protocol Working Group; International Forensic Nurse Examiner’s DNA Curriculum Development 

Working Group. 2Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, Full Report on the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women (2000). 3Lawrence A. Greenfeld & Steven K. Smith, U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, American Indians and 

Crime (1999). 4Stalking and Domestic Violence, May 2001 Report to Congress, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, NCJ 186157.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN ARTICHOKER, DIRECTOR, SACRED CIRCLE NATIONAL

RESOURCE CENTER TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST NATIVE WOMEN

I. Sacred Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native 

Women, provides training, consultation and technical assistance to Indian Nations, tribal organizations, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and courts to address the safety needs of Native women who are 

battered, raped and stalked. 

For over a decade, Sacred Circle has advocated for the safety of American Indian 

and Alaska Native women, by providing training, consultation and technical assistance on how to better respond to crimes of violence against Indian women, particularly domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. Sacred Circle submits this testimony to provide written documentation to the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs’ Oversight Hearing on the prevalence of violence against Indian women, and 

to provide recommendations on how to better safeguard the lives of Indian women. 

Our experience and national work with Indian women gives us the necessary expertise to provide an accurate overview of some of the successes and problem areas 

in addressing violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women throughout the United States. Sacred Circle is a member of numerous Federal inter-governmental committees and various national task forces established to address violence 

against women. 1 On a tribal level, Cangleska, Inc., the mother agency of Sacred 

Circle, provides advocacy to approximately 3,000 women and children each year and 

approximately 2,400 men who are on domestic violence probation as ordered by the 

Oglala Sioux tribal courts. 

Our testimony today offers concrete recommendations to strengthen the response 

of the Federal and tribal systems to increase safety for Indian women in the context 

of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Given the prevalence of violence against 

Indian women, immediate action by the Federal Government in coordination and 

consultation with Indian tribes is required to enhance the safety of Indian women 

and save lives. 

II. American Indian and Alaska Native women are disproportionately victimized by violence in America due to jurisdictional gaps in Federal 

law. 

Over the past 10 years, Sacred Circe has learned many things about the state of 

peril confronting Indian women. Indian women are battered, raped and stalked at 

far greater rates than any other group of women in the United States. This means 

that from the oldest to the youngest, Indian women are being disrespected in life, 

and sadly many are dying without justice or the knowledge that their granddaughters may 1 day live free of the violence they experienced. Because Indian 

women are the backbone of our societies, this violence not only destroys the quality 

of life of Indian women, but it also threatens the safety and stability of their families, communities and tribal governments. 

The Department of Justice estimates that:

• more than 1 out of 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women (34.1 percent) 

will be raped in her lifetime and 3 out of 4 will be physically assaulted; 2

• about 9 in 10 American Indian victims of rape or sexual assault were estimated 

to have assailants who were white or black; 3 and 

• 17 percent of American Indian women, at least twice that of other populations 

are stalked each year. 4

These statistics reflect the horrific levels of violence committed on a daily basis 

against Indian women. During a single weekend at one Indian Health Service emergency room, located at Pine Ridge, seventy women were treated for rape trauma. 

It is important to note that many victims often do not seek medical treatment, so 

37

5 I.j.d. Wallace, A.D. Calhoun, K.E. Powell, J. O’Neill, & S.P. James, Homicide and Suicide 

Among Native Americans, 1979–1992, Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 2, Atlanta, 

GA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, 1996. 6 Id. at 3. 

the instances of violence may in fact be higher than what the statistics show. It is 

also important to note that violence against Indian women occurs on a continuum 

of violence from simple assault to murder. 

In fact, murder is the third cause of death for America Indian women. 5 Further, 

the increased number of Indian women reported missing raises the concern that 

such cases should be investigated as homicide cases until the woman is located. The 

systemic response to a ‘‘missing person report’’ is frequently a ‘‘cold case file’’. 

Our experiences providing services to women show that the high levels of violence 

against Indian women is linked to the particular vulnerabilities of Indian women 

as a population and is compounded by the social realties facing most Indian communities in the United States. The gaps in Federal law and inadequate resources to 

support tribal justice systems allow perpetrators to commit acts of violence again 

and again with little or no accountability for their crimes. People often say that the 

justice system is broken. Indian women seeking safety understand this reality. 

Today it is more dangerous to report incidents of domestic violence and rape because of the retaliatory violence that often results due to the lack of an appropriate 

justice system response. 

The lack of jurisdiction of Indian nations over non-Indian perpetrators and the 

sentencing limitations placed upon Indian tribes by Congress enhances the vulnerability of Indian women and the ability of predators to target Indian women as a 

population. The Department of Justice estimation that 75 percent of sexual assaults 

committed against Indian women are by perpetrators of a different race 6 indicates 

that perpetrators of such violence are aware of this jurisdictional void. To make 

matters worse, this jurisdictional void furthers the public perception that Indian 

women are not entitled to the same protections as non-Indian women. The prevalence and severity of violence would be treated as an emergency if committed 

against any other population of women. 

We appreciate this Committee’s decision to hold oversight hearings on this important matter. We hope that this is merely a first step and that the Federal Government’s interest and concern will not end with the end of this hearing. The staggering statistics of violence against Indian women requires that the highest levels 

of government—Federal, state and tribal—act in coordination to address the escalating crisis in the lives of Indian women. 

III. VAWA 2006 law enforcement provisions can enhance the ability of Indian tribes to respond to crimes of violence against Indian women. 

The unique legal relationship of the United States to Indian tribes creates a Federal responsibility to assist tribal governments in safeguarding the lives of Indian 

women. On January 5, 2006, President Bush signed and reauthorized the Violence 

Against Women Act of 2005 (‘‘VAWA 2005’’). VAWA 2005 represents landmark legislation that aims to protect victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Contained in VAWA 2005 is the historic Title IX, Safety for Indian Women Act. Unfortunately, 1 year and 8 months after the reauthorization, 

many of the life-saving law enforcement provisions enacted by Congress have not 

been acted upon. 

Section 903 of Title IX provides the opportunity for consistent consultation on a 

government-to-government basis between the Department of Justice and Indian Nations. The first consultation was held at Mystic Lake, Minnesota on September 19, 

2006. The second annual consultation was held 1 year later, this past week, on September 19, 2007 at Sandia Pueblo, New Mexico. At this most recent consultation, 

Indian tribes in their comments consistently raised the concern that little, if no, action had been taken on the questions and recommendations from the previous year’s 

consultation. Further, a consistent concern raised by tribal leadership, including the 

Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, was that the law enforcement reform 

sections of VAWA 2006 have not been implemented. Attached is a list of tribal recommendations made during the 2007 consultation. (Attachment A). We concur with 

these recommendations, and we would like to highlight the following issues: 

38

7Section 905(a) amends 28 U.S.C. § 534, Access to Federal Criminal Information Data bases. 

8Section 908(a) amends 18 U.S.C. § 921(33)(a0(1), Firearms Possession Prohibition, and 25 

U.S.C. § 2803(3), Law Enforcement Authority. 9Section 909 amends Title 18, Chapter 17. 

a) Title IX, § 905 (a). Tracking of Violence Against Indian Women. 

Section 905(a) amends the Federal code 7 to require the Attorney General to permit Indian law enforcement agencies, in cases of domestic violence, dating violence, 

sexual assault, and stalking, to enter information into, and obtain information from, 

Federal criminal information databases. 

This amendment addresses a tremendous gap that has up to now acted to reduce 

the ability of tribal law enforcement to adequately respond to domestic violence and 

sexual assault. Prior to the amendment, tribal law enforcement access to the Federal criminal databases was dependent upon access granted or denied by the state 

agency. The ability of Indian tribes to enter information regarding order of protections and convicted sex offenders, and the resulting accessibility of that information 

to tribal, state and Federal law enforcement agencies, is a matter of life and death. 

This is particularly true for Indian women who have obtained an order of protection 

or cooperated with prosecuting their rapist. Access to the Federal databases is also 

an officer safety issue and essential to the day-to-day services provided to tribal 

communities. 

Although we applaud this amendment, we are concerned that it has not been 

properly implemented yet. Proper implementation of this provision requires the Department of Justice to issue guidelines and a directive to the personnel to allow tribal law enforcement to access the Federal criminal justice databases. 

§ 905(a) Tracking of Violence Against Indian Women Recommendations:

• Identify which component of DOJ is responsible for implementation of Section 

905(a) and provide Indian tribes contact information for the component;

• Develop DOJ guidelines for the implementation of Section 905(a), in consultation with Indian tribes, and provide the guidelines to Indian tribes;

• Issue a statement to Indian tribes that the system is now available for tribal 

law enforcement to access and enter information into the Federal databases 

under Section 905(b).

b) Title IX. § 908. Enhanced Criminal Law Resources. 

Section 908(a) amends the Federal criminal code 8 to expand the Firearms Possession Prohibition to include convictions in tribal court. It amends the Federal criminal code to include under the term ‘‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’’ any 

offense that is a misdemeanor under tribal law. 

Prior to passage of this amendment, perpetrators of domestic violence convicted 

in tribal court could continue to possess firearms. This important amendment by 

Congress recognized the danger that Indian women faced because of this legal loophole. Unfortunately, no training or guidelines have been issued by the Department 

of Justice for implementation of this life-saving provision. 

§ 908(a) Enhanced Criminal Law Resources Recommendations:

• Identify which component of DOJ is responsible for developing implementation 

prosecutorial guidelines for Section 908(a) and provide Indian tribes contact information for the component;

• Develop implementation guidelines on Section 908(a) in consultation with Indian tribes;

• Develop and provide training on the guidelines for the implementation of Section 908(a) to Indian tribes;

• Issue a press release at the time of the first prosecution of Section 908(a).

c) Title IX. § 909. Domestic Assault by an Habitual Offender. 

Section 909 amends the Federal criminal code 9 to create a new Federal felony for 

habitual offenders of domestic violence and sexual assault. It imposes criminal penalties upon any person who: (1) commits a domestic assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or Indian country; and (2) has 

a final conviction on at least two separate prior occasions in Federal, state, or tribal 

court for offenses that would be, if subject to Federal jurisdiction, an assault, sexual 

abuse, or serious violent felony against a spouse or intimate partner, or a domestic 

violence offense. 

Section 909 was enacted by Congress to address the reality that domestic violence 

is a pattern of violence that is repeated over time. Domestic violence increases in 

39

frequency and also in the severity of the violence committed. The pattern of domestic violence might begin at a misdemeanor level and escalate to a felony level of violence. Tribal law enforcement agencies report that domestic violence is one of the 

largest categories of crime within tribal jurisdiction. Domestic violence, however, is 

rarely prosecuted by the United States Attorneys’ Offices. One reason for the lack 

of prosecution is that a single incident of domestic violence often does not rise to 

the requirements of a Federal felony, and the Major Crimes Act does not include 

the crime of domestic violence. The amendment at Section 909 addresses this gap 

between tribal and Federal law. This new law will allow United States Attorneys 

to prosecute perpetrators of misdemeanor domestic violence that are repeat offenders and have two prior convictions in tribal court. It addresses an outstanding concern of tribal law enforcement, prosecutors and courts that domestic violence perpetrators are not being held accountable for violence committed against Indian 

women. 

Coordination of investigation efforts between tribal and Federal law enforcement 

will be essential to the successful prosecution of cases under this Section. Unfortunately, no training or guidelines have been issued by the Department of Justice on 

implementation of this very important Section that directly impacts the safety of Indian women. 

§ 909 Domestic Assault by an Habitual Offender Recommendations:

• Develop in consultation with Indian tribes guidelines for the implementation of 

Section 909 Domestic Assault by an Habitual Offender;

• Conduct cross training for Assistant United States Attorneys and tribal prosecutors for the investigation, charging and prosecution of cases under Section 

909;

• Inform Indian tribes of the progress and steps made toward implementation of 

Section 909.

IV. Research is necessary to understand the prevalence, unique particularities and estimated cost of crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, 

dating violence and stalking occurring against Indian women. 

The Department of Justice has issued several reports on violence against women 

mandated by the Acts of 1994 and 2000. Within these reports, crimes of violence 

against American Indian and Alaska Native women are given limited attention. Previous research mandated under VAWA did not require in depth research on violence 

against Indian women. 

Section 904 mandates for the first time in United States history a national baseline study reviewing the crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, 

stalking, and murder committed against Indian women. Such a study is essential 

to analyzing and creating safety in the lives of Indian women. 

Of critical importance is the establishment of a task force, as provided by Section 

903(A), to include representatives from national domestic violence and sexual assault tribal organizations that have decades of experience in assisting Indian 

women. Such a task force must also include Indian Nations, as the governments primarily responsible for providing emergency responses to such crimes, for providing 

daily assistance to Indian women, and for monitoring offenders. Indian tribes after 

tens of thousands of years maintain their inherent sovereignty with the authority 

and responsibility to protect the safety of their Indian women and the stability of 

their citizenry. The presence of these representatives on such a task force will ensure the expertise necessary to properly implement the baseline study required by 

Section 904. 

The following recommendations are offered to maximize the opportunity provided 

by Section 904:

• Immediately establish, as provided by Section 904(a)(3), the tribal task force to 

develop and guide implementation of the study;

• Recognize that American Indian and Alaska Native women experience multiple 

incidents of violence over a lifetime and addressing such violence requires an 

array of services beyond crisis intervention;

• Recognize that the failure of Federal justice systems, and state systems where 

state jurisdiction has been established, to adequately respond to violence 

against Native women is demonstrated in the distinction between the number 

of hospital emergency trauma center visits and the number of cases reported, 

charged and ultimately convicted.

40

10See A Quiet Crisis: Federal Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country, U.S. Comm. On 

Civ. Rights, available at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0204.pdf.

V. The new position of Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs within the Office 

on Violence Against Women is a first step toward increasing the ability 

of the Department of Justice to effectively coordinate on a governmental basis with Indian Nations and improve the response of tribal 

law enforcement agencies to crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault. 

The unique governmental relationship between Indian tribes and the United 

States is long established by the inherent sovereignty of Indian nations as governments that pre-existed the United States, and is recognized in the U.S. Constitution, 

Supreme Court cases, acts of Congress and Executives Orders of the President. Congress again recognized this unique governmental relationship within the Violence 

Against Women Act by statutorily including Indian tribes within various provisions 

and defining Indian Tribes as eligible applicants for certain programs under the Act 

from the Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. The administration of Federal programs to tribal governments must comply with this legal 

context. As such, the development of policies and grant program guidelines according to state-based models is not only inappropriate, but also ineffective in the creation and implementation of an effective response to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking against Native women. Furthermore, in order to properly administer tribal set-aside funds, it is necessary to keep in mind the special relationship 

between Indian tribes and the Federal Government, and the confusing jurisdictional 

realities in Indian country. This is also essential in the development of appropriate 

model codes, protocols, public education awareness materials, research, and training. 

Increasing the response of Indian tribes and tribal law enforcement to domestic 

violence and sexual assault requires understanding the complexity of the jurisdictional maze created by Federal Indian law, the appropriate protocol for implementing government-to-government programmatic and administrative matters, and 

the management of funds set aside for Indian Nations. The new statutorily created 

Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs must be involved with any initiatives to address 

and enhance the response of tribal law enforcement to domestic violence and sexual 

assault. The authorities, responsibilities and expertise of the Deputy Director will 

be essential to the success of any initiative to increase the safety of Indian women 

and respond to such crimes. However, we want to stress that the Department of 

Justice’s responsibilities should not end with the creation of this office. This is merely an important first step among many that need to be taken to adequately address 

the horrific levels of violence perpetrated against Indian women. 

VI. Conclusion. 

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act recognizing the extent 

and severity of violence against women. Over the last eleven years, the Act has significantly increased the ability of Indian Nations, tribal law enforcement agencies, 

and advocacy organizations to assist Indian women and hold perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking accountable for their crimes. 

VAWA 2005, specifically Title IX, represents a historic turning point in United 

States history in the recognition by the United States of its unique legal responsibility to assist Indian tribes in safeguarding the lives of Indian women. Addressing 

the needs and challenges confronting Indian tribes and tribal law enforcement in 

adequately responding to crimes of violence against Indian women under VAWA 

2005 requires the full involvement of all agencies in the coordinated governmental 

implementation of the Act. 

Given the crisis in the lives of Indian women and the present lack of adequate 

resources to properly safeguard Indian women, 10 it is clear that more must be done 

at every level, from increasing funding through the Office on Violence Against 

Women, to better coordinating the handling of cases by the FBI and United States 

Attorneys, to addressing the problematic release of perpetrators by the Bureau of 

Prisons. If action is taken at every level, we can improve efforts to create a more 

responsive Federal criminal justice system, and we can enhance tribes’ ability to 

safeguard their citizens and communities. In conclusion, Federal agencies must 

work on a government-to-government basis with Indian Nations, specifically tribal 

law enforcement, prosecutors and courts to hold perpetrators of such crimes accountable. 

The advances made under VAWA 2005 have the potential to further the progress 

made toward a time when the honored status of Indian women is restored and all 

women will live free of violence.

41

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Artichoker, thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

Finally, Mr. Riyaz Kanji, from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr. Kanji, 

you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RIYAZ A. KANJI, KANJI AND KATZEN 

Mr. KANJI. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. I very much appreciate the invitation to appear before the Committee this morning. 

By way of a very brief background, I clerked for Justice David 

Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court in the October Term, 1994. And 

I have practiced and taught in the field of Federal Indian law ever 

since. Much of my work focuses on the Supreme Court’s Indian law 

jurisprudence. 

The other witnesses before this Committee this morning have 

testified I think in very eloquent terms about the tremendous problems that arise from the fact that tribes presently do not enjoy 

criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. I am here to address the 

question whether this Congress has the constitutional authority to 

take meaningful action in the face of those problems by restoring 

to tribes the sovereign power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over 

non-Indians. I think the answer to that question, as the Supreme 

Court made clear in its recent decision in the United States v. Lara

case is an emphatic yes. Lara reaffirmed several fundamental tenets of Federal Indian law. First, that Congress has very broad 

powers to legislate with respect to Indian affairs. Those powers are 

grounded in what is known as the Indian Commerce Clause, which 

is found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. And the Court 

has long described those powers as being plenary and exclusive. 

Second, the Court observed that Congress has historically exercised 

those powers both to restrict and in turn to relax those restrictions 

on the tribe’s sovereign authority. Neither Congress nor the Court 

has viewed Congress’ plenary powers as being a one-way ratchet. 

Those powers may be used both to expand and to contract tribal 

sovereignty. And indeed, there exist no textual limitations in the 

Constitution on Congress’ power to restore sovereign powers to the 

tribes. 

Third, the Court held that the ability of tribes to control events 

taking place in their own territories, including through the maintenance of the criminal justice system, is an inherent attribute of 

tribal sovereignty, such that there is nothing unconstitutional or 

remarkable about Congressional action designed to restore to tribes 

the ability to do just that. 

I think the history behind the Lara decision is instructive. The 

limitations in the modern era on the tribes’ criminal powers have 

stemmed in significant part from two Supreme Court decisions that 

predated Lara. The first of these was the 1978 decision in Oliphant 

v. Suquamish Tribe, where the Court examined an array of statutes, treaties and other legal materials and concluded that, taken 

together, those legislative and executive branch actions had operated to divest tribes of their criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. 

In the 1990 case of Duro v. Reina, the Court likewise concluded 

that the tribes had been divested of jurisdiction to prosecute Indians who are not members of the prosecuting tribe. The Duro decision prompted an immediate response from Congress, which within 

42

a year enacted legislation that came to be known as the Duro fix. 

That legislation provided that the tribes’ powers of self-government 

include the inherent power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all 

Indians. That legislation in turn was challenged by criminal defendants who argued that both Oliphant and Duro were constitutional decisions that were not subject to modification by Congress. 

In its 2004 decision in Lara, the Court emphatically rejected that 

argument. After reaffirming the plenary powers of Congress, the 

Court stated in no uncertain terms that both Oliphant and Duro 

are in the Court’s words, Federal common law decisions that are 

subject to Congressional modification. As the Court said, those decisions simply ‘‘reflect the Court’s view of the tribes’ retained sovereign status at the time the Court made them. They did not set 

forth constitutional limits that prohibit Congress from taking actions that modify or adjust the tribe’s status.’’ I think it bears mention that the Lara majority was joined by then Chief Justice 

Rehnquist, who had authored the Oliphant decision. 

Lara is subject to one very important caveat. The Court reserved 

the question whether Congress can authorize tribes to prosecute either non-Indians or non-member Indians absent the full panoply of 

due process protections that apply in Federal and State courts. 

Most of those protections already apply in tribal court as well by 

virtue of the Indian Civil Rights Act. But there are exceptions, 

most notably the right of indigent defendants to counsel. 

It is my strong view that any Congressional legislation restoring 

to the tribes criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians should include 

the full panoply of due process protections. Otherwise, I think there 

is a strong chance that the present Court would strike down the 

legislation. 

Lara is an extremely important decision. A Court that is widely 

viewed as being highly jealous of its own prerogatives reaffirmed 

the notion that Congress has the ultimate authority over Indian affairs, and Lara, I think, is the right decision. The field of Federal, 

State, tribal relations is far too complicated and nuanced to be ultimately controlled by the inevitable constraints that exist on judicial decisionmaking. The Oliphant decision, as we have heard, has 

contributed to disastrous results in Indian Country. But in Lara, 

at least the Court made it clear that Congress has the power to act 

to improve the situation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kanji follows:]

43

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RIYAZ A. KANJI, KANJI AND KATZEN


927kan1.eps
44


927kan2.eps
45


927kan3.eps
46


927kan4.eps
47


927kan5.eps
48


927kan6.eps
49


927kan7.eps
50


927kan8.eps
51


927kan9.eps
52


927kan10.eps
53


927kan11.eps
54


927kan12.eps
55


927kan13.eps
56


927kan14.eps
57


927kan15.eps
58


927kan16.eps
59


927kan17.eps
60


927kan18.eps
61


927kan19.eps
62

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kanji, thank you very much. 

Let me ask a couple of questions and then I will call on my colleagues. My understanding is that when on an Indian reservation, 

a non-Indian commits a crime, in this case let’s describe it as violence against women, rape or sexual assault, that that then has to 

be dealt with by the U.S. Attorney, right, or law enforcement off 

the reservation, is that correct? 

Mr. KANJI. That is largely correct, Mr. Chairman, except in the 

Public Law 280 States where the States would have criminal jurisdiction. 


927kan20.eps
63

The CHAIRMAN. And there have been complaints to our Committee and there have been references in research that has been 

done, articles written, that often those cases are not pursued with 

great vigor, those cases are not given priority. You refer to that, 

Ms. Young and Ms. Artichoker, in your testimony. Describe that 

and your concern about that again. 

Ms. ARTICHOKER. Well, I think there is interplay and dynamic 

there. One, we have a community now that believes nothing will 

be done. So there is the, we have a no reporting problem. People 

are not reporting. Nothing is going to happen anyway. And then, 

if you do have situations where it is reported and I can share a personal situation where a young woman came to me, she had been 

raped in her own home, in her own bed. And she had reported it, 

she said the criminal investigator told her, sounds to me like you 

need to change your lifestyle. 

So she came to me and she said, can you advocate for me, I want 

this to go to court, I want to testify, I want to tell my story. And 

so I called the FBI, and I was told that she was so drunk she didn’t 

know whether she gave consent or not. So this interplay also with 

alcohol use and where most often we are going to see alcohol involved in these situations. So there is an attitude issue around alcohol use, especially on the part of women. And then you have 

again how that moves down into the community to what is the 

point in reporting. So we have a domino effect. 

And so we don’t see them prioritizing these cases then, because 

everyone is related, nobody is going to testify. In the end, the addiction issue is going to be too great, it might prohibit a family’s 

really being able to support someone. So it just goes on and on and 

on. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Young? 

Ms. YOUNG. In small communities, when women attempt to 

make reports, they are oftentimes forced to give their story over 

the telephone. That in and of itself creates a lot of barriers. We 

have a young woman in a small village, about 150 people, called 

not just once, but three different times, feeling as though may be 

they didn’t understand what she was explaining to them, what had 

actually happened. An entire year went by and no response other 

than the interview on the phone. No other person was contacted. 

When you are in a small community like that, you know who 

your perpetrator is. To give some context to that, if you do find 

your way to a court situation and to the sentencing piece, I have 

sat in court while mothers and aunties and grandmothers are 

asked for their input before the sentencing happens. And these 

women are standing up and saying to the judge, please, don’t allow 

them to come back to our community, please when they get out of 

jail, which generally is a short amount of time. 

But probation, they generally end up back in our same communities. The perpetrator of my own daughter lives about four blocks 

away from me. And on an ongoing basis, if I am in my yard, he 

is sitting across the street at his aunt and uncle’s house, watching 

me. So not only do they have the opportunity to stalk and prey on 

young women int eh community, but afterwards they terrorize family members. 

64

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that the three areas that have 

been discussed here include one, the lack of adequate medical 

treatment and perhaps the gathering and development of evidence 

in the medical treatment shortly after a sexual assault, rape kits 

and so on, the availability of all of that. Second, the concern about 

the lack of aggression by investigators or the investigation itself in 

some cases not taken seriously. In other cases it is tied up over the 

labyrinth of issues about who has jurisdiction and so on. And third, 

the concern about the lack of aggressiveness in the prosecution or 

even determining whether it will be prosecuted. Are those accurately pretty much the three ares that are of great concern? 

And then as you think about that and answer that, Ms. Arriaga, 

it has been very difficult to get data or statistics about what has 

happened, and Amnesty International did gather data and statistics. Tell us how you did that? And how confident are you in the 

information that you have developed? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. Well, the data that we gathered was a combination. Part of it was looking at what does exist and trying to find 

out what exists. As I sated, some of this was statistics that the Department of Justice does have, general statistics that they have. 

But the specifics are still severely lacking. We believe that it is 

important that for data collection, that there be much more done. 

As I said, there are no statistics right now on specifically sexual 

violence in Indian Country or Alaska Native villages. Federal, 

State and tribal authorities should be collecting this information. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office should be looking to see which cases are 

reported and referred, which ones are declined and for what reasons, what the specifics are about the case, whether the perpetrator 

or the victim is non-Indian. None of that is currently taking place 

as far as we can tell. Amnesty did request that kind of information 

from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and it was not provided to us. Perhaps the Congress would have more success in that area to determine whether or not this is happening in a systematic way. 

In addition, there should be information that is collected about 

the severity of the issue. And for this I would really look to my colleagues here, because we relied heavily with advocates to get a 

sense from their communities and from their experience about 

what in fact is the reality. So much of the research we did was 

based on interviews. And I know that in the case of the Violence 

Against Women Act there are some specific areas there that may 

speak to this. So I would really defer to my colleagues on that as 

well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am going to defer to my colleagues for questions. But Mr. Kanji, 

your testimony is going to be very helpful to us. And I hope that 

you will remain available to us as we reach out following this hearing to try to think through and work through some of these issues. 

So I thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator Murkowski? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to followup 

with your line there in terms of the three areas that we are breaking down, when you think about the law enforcement aspect and 

the tangled mess that we have, the maze, as Amnesty calls it, we 

65

recognize that today, this month, this year, we are probably not 

going to unravel that. We desperately need to address it. 

But there are some things that I think that we can do now that 

can make a difference. For instance, the collection of the forensic 

evidence. If this is causing a problem or not allowing prosecutions 

to go forward, and it is because we don’t have the sexual assault 

nurse examiner available or trained, we can do that. If it is an 

issue where we don’t have the professionals that are out there, we 

don’t have access to them, we can work on aspects of that. 

I understand, though, that part of the problem, and Ms. Young, 

maybe you can address this, is that IHS nurses can get the same 

training to be a sexual assault nurse examiners. But they have to 

take time off from their regular duties for the training, they have 

to pay their own transportation to the training locations. So if you 

are coming from a small community in southeast or out in western 

Alaska, and you have to fly into Anchorage for the training and you 

have to pay for that out of pocket, you and I know that you are 

talking $500, $600, $700 just for that, and that they then also receive no overtime pay for what they are doing as a SANE examiner. 

To me, these are barriers that keep individuals from moving forward and saying, okay, I will help out. We need to remove those 

barriers. We need to help with that. 

I want to ask a question, because it has been mentioned, Ms. 

Rozell, in your testimony and both Ms. Artichoker and Ms. Young, 

you have spoken to it. The fact that in so many of the communities, 

the villages in Alaska or on the reservations, you are talking about 

close-knit communities. Everybody knows everybody. You are related to half the people in the village. and when violence occurs, 

there oftentimes is well, don’t go after him, he is Uncle So and So, 

or everybody knows him. And there is a hesitancy because of that 

closeness. 

There is also nowhere to go. In too many of our villages, there 

is no road out of town. The only way out is an airplane that is cost 

prohibitive. So we have geographical barriers that are inhibiting. 

Do you have any suggestions for us? How do we deal with these 

close-knit communities in providing for a level of protection? When 

you go into the clinic for an exam, where is your perpetrator? Are 

there any suggestions that you can give us as we deal with these 

kinds of problems? 

Ms. YOUNG. This has been something that we have talked about 

at great length. When we have the opportunity for women to be 

provided an exam, a rape exam, many times they have to leave the 

community. It is the only way. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I know that in some areas we are trying to 

provide transportation funding to get the woman to a hub community so there is a safe house. 

Ms. YOUNG. Yes. In some communities there are safe homes, and 

more used for the domestic violence piece than for the sexual assault piece. One of the conversations that we have been having is 

around the issue of protection orders for victims of sexual violence, 

especially in small communities. Of course, this is after the exam 

is happening. 

66

One of the largest pieces for us is that in small communities, 

community health aides are the only form of medical provider. At 

this point in time, they have no training to provide this. This next 

coming month, we will be meeting with the trainers for the community health aides to have this very conversation: how can we get 

them trained and also at what level of liability are we talking 

about. 

Generally speaking, when you start talking about medical, that 

is the very first issue that folks want to address. Even in the community that I live in, in Sitka, we had the opportunity to develop 

a SART team, a sexual assault response team. And it took us three 

and a half years of dialogue to figure out at which hospital, because 

there was a non-Native and a Native hospital. And even after all 

of that conversation, the program only stayed in place for a little 

less than 2 years. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Artichoker? 

Ms. ARTICHOKER. On the Pine Ridge, we just built a beautiful 

new shelter. And of course, we serve victims of domestic violence 

and sexual assault. And through then the shelter, we are coordinating to get, for instance, recently a young woman was gang raped 

as part of a gang initiation. Her choices were to be assaulted physically with fists or to be sexually assaulted. She chose to be sexually assaulted, after which she became psychotic. 

So using the shelter then, and shelter advocates, we have become 

sort of the hub to refer out and would like to be able to expand our 

resource base so that we could really provide substantive services 

to both victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, knowing 

that most women who are battered are also victimized by sexual 

violence. 

So we are thinking that we don’t really, our communities are 

small, we don’t need to go the route of having a separate domestic 

violence movement, a separate sexual assault movement. We need 

to be able to do both. We would really like to see some communitybased pilot projects where we could have a women’s advocacy center that would provide a forensic exam, an advocate, a mental 

health professional. Because quite honestly, we do see a lot of 

women becoming psychotic following sexual assault. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You mentioned that you have a nice, new 

shelter in Pine Ridge. 

Ms. ARTICHOKER. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What is the condition of shelters in the 

other areas in your state? 

Ms. ARTICHOKER. Well, in the State of South Dakota, actually, it 

is quite good. We have been working as private non-profits in our 

communities for many, many years. 

However, the rest of Indian nations, we have only been able to 

identify about 30 shelters. So that is one of the reasons why we are 

constantly saying we need construction dollars, we need to be able 

to build in our communities, because the infrastructure is not 

there. And it is only with the help of the Shakopee Mdewakanton 

Sioux community that we were able to build our shelter. 

So prior to that, we had people sleeping on the floor like cordwood. We say like cordwood, because we had a two-bedroom shelter. Now we can accommodate 36 people, and I think for us, we are 

67

looking at a continuum of services, so that you can remain in your 

community but in some sheltered space. We want transitional 

housing. We want the capacity to shelter women for long term so 

they can get the support that they need. Because otherwise you are 

out there and people are nattering at you that, how dare you, you 

need to not testify and there is the family feuds that occur when 

these crimes are committed. 

So we would really like to see a continuum of services. Many 

times women will be homeless as a result of sexual assault or domestic violence. This past summer, we had a tipi up for a women’s 

mental health program. We put up this tipi. We had one woman 

come and ask if she and her children could live in the tipi for the 

summer. We had another woman who was living down by the creek 

in a tent with her children. We had one woman living in an abandoned trailer house with her teenage son. 

So the housing issue is really problematic, and it doesn’t lend to 

families being able to support each other in these really stressful 

situations. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Tester? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate everybody who has testified here today on an issue that is more than 

just a little bit distressing. I have several questions, and I want to 

say, before I get into questions that Ms. Rozell, I particularly appreciate your testimony and the fact that you were able to even do 

it. And I think it is—I can’t imagine how difficult. But I really appreciate your being able to come here today. 

I guess I will start with Mr. Kanji. And it deals with, as I am 

sitting here listening to testimony, you have actions against Indian 

women that could be by an Indian, by a non-Indian, it could be on 

tribal land, it could be off tribal land. Is the jurisdiction clear, or 

do we need to clarify that, and can we clarify it, if it is not clear? 

Mr. KANJI. Thank you, Senator. 

First off, the jurisdictional problems are certainly very, I think 

there is nothing clear about the jurisdiction when it comes to criminal actions in Indian Country, partly because of the maze of Congressional statutes and partly because of the court decisions that 

I described. I think that Congress certainly can do a great deal to 

help clarify the jurisdictional situation. Because of time constraints, I limited my remarks to one aspect of that, expanding the 

tribes’ criminal jurisdiction to include non-Indians. 

But there are several other very important steps that Congress 

could take, I think, that would help greatly in this situation. First 

and foremost, as you noted, certainly a good deal of these crimes 

are committed by tribal members against other tribal members. I 

think the statistics suggest that the majority are committed by 

non-Indians. But we certainly have an important quota of crimes 

that are committed by Indian defendants. And there the problem 

is that the Indian Civil Rights Act limits tribal sentences to 1 year 

in jail and a $5,000 fine. So even when a tribe is prosecuting one 

68

of its own members for a violent crime, it is severely constrained 

in the punishment that it can mete out. 

And many of the terrible stories that one hears are about tribal 

members in their own communities wreaking havoc and being sentenced to jail for a year and then coming right back out and doing 

it again and again and again. That is a terrible situation and that 

is certainly something where Congress could act to increase that 

ceiling and increase that limit. 

I think Congress can also act to provide incentives for the sort 

of Federal-State-tribal cooperation that has also been discussed and 

that I think can be very helpful in situations where there is inevitably going to be jurisdictional overlap. I think there has been a 

great deal of success in recent years in tribes and States forging 

cooperative agreements in certain parts of the Country to work together on criminal investigations, criminal prosecutions, the crossdeputization of police officers being a prime example. Chairman 

Dorgan referred to U.S. Attorney Troy Eid and his program in Colorado, where Federal commissions have been provided to State and 

tribal officers. 

Those are all very good things. But by and large they are happening in a very local way in certain pockets of the country and 

not in others. I think if Congress were to provide incentives for 

that form of agreement, cooperation, that could be very helpful. In 

the State of Wisconsin, there has been a State program where the 

State has provided additional funding to those counties that enter 

into cooperative agreements with tribes. And what we have seen 

there is that the number of those cooperative agreements has 

grown exponentially. And from what I have heard, the experience 

has been a very positive one. So that is the second thing that Congress can do. 

A third thing I think would be to—we haven’t talked very much 

about the Public Law 280 States, but the States where by virtue 

of Public Law 280 the States have primary criminal jurisdiction, 

even with respect to Indian territories. There again, as with the 

Federal situation, the situation has been very mixed, but we have 

a lot of States, counties where the State authorities are not terribly 

interested in prosecuting these kinds of crimes. And if Congress 

were to act to make clear that the tribes have concurrent jurisdiction in those situations, so the tribes can act, whether or not the 

States are acting, that would again eliminate a jurisdictional problem and provide for increased enforcement and prosecution. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

I want to go to the other end of the panel. Ms. Arriaga, at the 

end of your testimony you said that crimes against Indian women 

were human rights abuses. Then you said that the United States 

had, the way I interpreted it, signed up with other nationalities, so 

to speak, but had not done anything with Native Americans. Could 

you expand on that a little bit, to give me a little better understanding of what exactly you are talking about? 

Ms. ARRIAGA. What I was referring to was basically international 

law, which treaties we have ratified and which we have not that 

are international treaties. And what international human rights 

law is with regard to issues of sexual violence. So in that category, 

there are several categories that the United States has entered into 

69

that are generally United Nations treaties that are the standard 

that, the standard-setter for human rights worldwide and the guiding post that Amnesty uses. 

Amnesty International holds any government accountable to certain standards. That is what the treaties lay out. So in accordance 

with international law, these are in fact human rights abuses. In 

some cases, some parts of the world, when you talk about violence 

against women, it is considered cultural. It is not cultural, it is a 

crime. It is an abuse. 

So that is why these standards exist, so that you can actually cut 

through and say, no, there are minimal standards and we have to 

recognize them. So some of the treaties that the United States has 

in fact ratified that apply would be, for example, the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There may be some aspects 

of some other treaties that apply, too. 

One that we have not ratified is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. One hundred eighty-five countries have, but the United States has not. The 

United States is one of eight countries that has not, even though 

we were instrumental in drafting that treaty. So that is one that 

looks at issues of discrimination and Amnesty believes that discrimination is a root cause of violence. Once you establish relationships that are unequal it becomes a lot easier to conduct violence. 

So that is one of our recommendations. 

The other thing that I will mention very quickly is that the 

United Nations did pass just recently, of course there is the U.N. 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But specifically in 

September of this year, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the 

Declaration and that calls on all State governments to, and then 

in quotations, ‘‘consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples’ concerns through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.’’

So that is why Amnesty believes that the first step is to have a 

genuine consultation in good faith in order to determine with the 

tribal governments how to go forward. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

I just have—well, I have many more questions, but I am going 

to limit it to one more. It was something that Tammy Young said 

about the clergy being part of the problem, if that is what I heard. 

I am curious to know if you can expand on that a little bit because 

oftentimes that is the first place you turn. 

Ms. YOUNG. Yes. As part of our packet that we submitted, there 

was about 105 pages of news articles that have been in the Anchorage, Fairbanks and other newspapers in Alaska. Several of them 

talk about a progression of years of abuse that both men and 

women as adults are coming forward. 

When we talk about the effect of sexual violence and the reality 

that it is a multi-generational situation for many of our families, 

it is important for us to know where it is coming from. 

Senator TESTER. Very good. Thank you. Once again, thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your putting this hearing together and 

the staff helping on that. 

70

In a short close, I hope this isn’t the last conversation, I hope it 

is the first of many, and I hope that we come forth with some policy initiatives that will really help, take some serious inroads to 

give hope back to Indian Country in this particular area. So thank 

you all for testifying. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Tester follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Thank you for holding this important markup and hearing today, Mr. Chairman. 

We address several critical issues in Indian Country; housing, violence against Indian women and others. 

I first want to recognize and thank all the folks in this room who have been working on these bills. I know that some of you have been working for years on them 

and want to thank your for dedication and hard work. I think all of us in this room 

have similar goals for our work on this Committee. And that, Mr. Chairman, is to 

improve conditions in Indian Country. We don’t always agree on exactly how to accomplish those goals but, it’s comforting to know that we’re moving in the right direction. 

Mr. Chairman, some folks, including Montanans, do have some concerns remaining with the NAHASDA bill. But, rather than slow down the momentum of this critical bill, I’ll vote to pass it and hope that our staffs can work together on some report language or something to make sure that this bill translates into better housing in Indian Country for as many people as possible. I want to make sure that we 

improve conditions for everybody; not just 2⁄3 of the people, or 1⁄3 of the people, but 

for everybody. 

Regarding the hearing this morning, Mr. Chairman, I can’t thank you enough for 

shedding Congressional light on this critical issue. As you know, Indian women suffer from much greater rates of violence than non-Indians. This is outrageous. Mr. 

Chairman, Indians face too many challenges already. Indian women should not have 

to live in pain and fear. 

I stand committed to doing everything possible to remove this damaging element 

of Indian life. I encourage everybody in this room to continue working together 

closely to solve problems and improve conditions in Indian Country. We can’t afford 

to wait. While we deliberate, Indians suffer. Mr. Chairman, I’m going to vote to pass 

these bills today because they represent another step forward in improving Indian 

Country and look forward to future work.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tester, thank you. 

Let me just say you have, as a first term Senator, just arrived, 

you have been a great addition to our Committee. We appreciate 

your participation. You come from a State that has reservations, I 

visited one with you and I know you care about those issues deeply. 

So Senator Murkowski and I are really appreciative of your participation. 

And let me echo your comments to Ms. Rozell. It is, I am sure, 

very difficult to be public about these issues. And yet I suspect that 

you know that doing so is really advocating on behalf of others who 

perhaps can’t or won’t or feel that they are not able to do what you 

are able to do. So the Committee really appreciates your being 

here. 

The work that Amnesty International has done, I think, is very 

important work. And I hope you will continue to do that, because 

I think it will be very instructive for us. To Ms. Young and Ms. 

Artichoker, your work at the local level is also, I am sure, work 

that gives hope to some people who have desperately needed that 

hope. 

Mr. Kanji, we are going to call on you, we are trying to work 

through this maze of contradiction and conflict to see what could 

we do that could address some of these jurisdictional issues in a 

71

way that recognizes, continues always to recognize the sovereignty 

issue. But in a way that reaches out and helps tribal governments 

with respect to their law enforcement and helps victims understand 

that if they are victimized, perpetrators will be brought to justice. 

That is very important. 

So this is another of a series of hearings that we have held on 

these issues, law enforcement, violence, in this case violence 

against women. And Senator Murkowski and I were just talking 

about several other steps that we are hoping to take to both gather 

data and develop the basis on which to consult with tribes, which 

is very important to us. But second, then, reach consensus about 

what those consultations could allow all of us to do in concert that 

will address these issues in a meaningful way. 

Senator Murkowski, do you have any final comments? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do, Mr. Chairman. I think we are all troubled, troubled is a mild word. The violence that we see against 

women in this Country we know is simply not acceptable. And I applaud those that dedicate their lief as advocates to help end domestic violence. 

But I am so troubled, Mr. Chairman, that within that sector of 

violence against women that our stories, because I don’t want to 

even go to the statistics, we know our statistics are what drives it, 

we have to have the data. But it is really the stories of the violence 

directed toward American Indian and Alaska Native women. This 

subset of women, where we see the statistics doubled and tripled, 

to know that in my State, if you are a Native woman, the statistics, 

the chances of you being raped are two and a half times more than 

if you are a non-Native woman. Same place, same people around 

you, but if you are a Native, then the chances that you are going 

to be a victim are that much greater. 

And it hurts to hear some of the stereotypes. But we have to figure out how we can provide for a level of protection, a level of safety for all women. But to know that within our American Indian 

and our Alaska Native communities that women are simply not 

safe is just not acceptable, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the efforts 

of so many. But we have to get beyond just saying, thank you for 

the good work that you do. We really have to turn this around for 

the people in Alaska and the people all over Indian Country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. 

Let me make one additional comment. I was thinking about a 

hearing I held in this area, not just about women, but the area of 

sexual abuse. And I held that hearing in North Dakota some long 

while ago. And a young woman testified who was in charge, on one 

of our reservations, of social services and various issues related to 

that. And she was a woman in her mid-20’s, had just taken that 

job. And she began testifying and she described a stack of folders 

in her office on the floor that represented complaints, in some cases 

sexual violence against children. She said the complaints have not 

even been investigated, there is nobody to investigate them. And 

then she said, if there is a young child who needs to go to a clinic 

for some tests or some medical treatment, she said, I have to go 

beg to borrow somebody’s car to take them. 

Then all of a sudden she stopped testifying, she broke down sobbing and couldn’t continue, just couldn’t continue. She was so 

72

struck with grief about her situation. And a month or two later, 

she quit her job. But it describes why we are here and why there 

is an urgency and a need for us not to ignore this, but rather to 

address it. I am committed, I know Senator Murkowski and Senator Tester are as well, to make this hearing count and attempt to 

make some real progress. 

I thank you very much for testifying. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(73)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARON ASETOYER, M.A. (COMANCHE NATION); EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN’S HEALTH EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

I would like to submit this testimony for the record to the Senate Indian Affairs 

Committee: Oversight Hearing to Examine Violence Against Native American 

Women that was held on September 27, 2007. Violence against women is against 

the law and that include crimes of sexual violence. Our history has illustrated that 

patterns of sexual violence against Native American and Alaska Native women occurs against a backdrop of systemic discrimination against Indigenous Peoples. 

When a Native woman suffers abuse, this abuse is not just an attack on her identity 

as a woman, but on her identity as Native. 

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans 

equal protection under the law. This means that the government has a legal obligation to intervene in sexual assault crimes against Native American and Alaska Native women just as it responds to sexual violence against other Americans. Failure 

to do so would be unconstitutional racial discrimination. 

More than 1 in 3—Native American and Alaska Native women will be raped during their lifetime. Sexual assault against Native American and Alaska Native 

women is not met with uniform response and the challenges faced by survivors at 

every level increases the likelihood of impunity for perpetrators. 

In January 2005 the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center released a report entitled A Survey of Sexual Assault Policy and Protocols Within Indian Health Service Emergency Rooms. The Resource Center has put together 

this briefing paper on emergency room services and policies for Native American 

and Alaska Native women who go to an Indian Health Service facility for assistance 

after a rape or sexual assault. The findings of this survey are alarming and document a substantial gap in services.

• 30 percent of Service Units surveyed reported that they do not have policies in 

place for emergency services in case of sexual assault.

• 70 percent of the respondents indicated they have policies.

• 56 percent of Service Units have their policies posted and accessible to staff 

members. The statistics reflect a discrepancy between policy and practice.

• 44 percent of the facilities lacked trained personnel to perform emergency services such as the collection of evidence done in a police rape kit. For those facilities in the lower 48 states that do not provide emergency services for sexual 

assault, victims must travel long distance some over 150 miles to receive services. This figure does not include the extreme travel distances and challenges 

faced by Alaska Native women.

Indian Health Services could greatly reduce the number of sexual assaults within 

our communities if they would have trained Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners 

(SANE) and Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) programs within each Service 

Unit. A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner is a registered nurse who has been specifically trained to provide care to victims of sexual assault and is capable of conducting 

forensic exams. In addition, a SANE collects the forensic evidence that is needed 

in court to get a conviction that would remove these perpetrators from our communities. Many of these perpetrators are repeat offenders and they know that nothing 

is being done to remove them from the streets so they are free to rape again and 

they do. 

To strengthen the services provided to victims of sexual assault Indian Health 

Services must adopt a set of standardized Sexual Assault Policies and Protocols 

within Indian Health Service Emergency Rooms and all clinical facilities with SANE 

in place. This would dramatically reduce the number of perpetrators that on our 

streets. 

74

Over the past 5 years Native American and Alaska Native women and a coalition 

of national organizations have been working to develop a set of Sexual Assault Policies and Protocols for Indian Health Service Emergency Rooms. 

In 2005 this coalition took these policies and protocols to the National Congress 

of American Indians and NCAI passed Resolution #TUL–05–101 in support of adoption and implementation of these standardized sexual assault policies and protocols. 

When Indian Health Service is asked about standardized sexual assault policies 

and protocols their repeated response is that they respect the sovereignty of Tribes 

and IHS does not impose standardized policies. With the passage of this resolution, 

which is a collective decision of sovereign Tribes, IHS stills does not implement 

standardized sexual assault policies and protocols. This is not respecting the decision or the sovereignty of Tribes, it is undermining the sovereignty of Tribes to work 

together. 

IHS does not have standardized sexual assault policies and protocols in place; in 

addition the current process for approving a witness to testify in court, which is essential in order to get a conviction of a rapist, is so complicated that it does not 

occur. The request for an IHS staff to testify in court has to go through so many 

levels of approval that by the time it gets to Head Quarters it gets lost into some 

kind of a ‘‘black hole’’ never to be responded to or that it is so timely that the prosecution has no one to testify on the evidence and the case is lost, leaving the perpetrator to rape again. 

To reduce the number of rapes that occur within Native American and Alaska Native communities the follow must happen:

1. Indian Health Service must adopt and implement Standardized Sexual Assault Policies and Protocols.

2. Train and place existing staff to become Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners 

(SANE) in all Indian Health Service Clinic Facilities.

3. Ensure that police rape kits are available all Indian Health Service clinics 

and facilities.

4. Simplify the witness testimony approval process, which currently prohibits 

needed court testimony from the appropriate medical personnel.

5. Modify the method of service unit collection data by giving sexual assault it’s 

own category number so there are accurate statistics on the number of sexual 

assaults committed. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DORMA L. SAHNEYAH, CHIEF PROSECUTOR, HOPI TRIBE

Good morning, Honorable Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman, Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Vice Chairman, and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, I am honored to present testimony today before the Committee. 

I bring greetings to all from the Hopi and Tewa people and Chairman Benjamin 

H. Nuvamsa. 

My name is Dorma L. Sahneyah. I am an enrolled member of the Hopi Tribe and 

belong to the Tewa Tobacco Clan on my mother’s side. I serve the Hopi Tribe as 

Chief Prosecutor, a position I have held for almost 11 years after having completed 

my legal education at the Arizona State University School of Law. I currently also 

serve as President of the Arizona Tribal Prosecutors’ Association. 

The Hopi Tribe is a federally recognized tribe located in the State of Arizona. The 

Hopi Reservation, which consists of 1.5 million acres of land that extends into two 

counties, is located in the arid deserts of northeastern Arizona. As with other American Indian tribes that are located in remote areas, the Hopi Tribe faces many challenges and obstacles in keeping our community, particularly our women and children, safe from perpetrators of crime. 

The Hopi Tribe is a non-gaming tribe that has over the past years relied primarily 

on revenue from coal mining operations to support government-based programs and 

services. The Tribe is however anticipating a shortfall of almost $8 million in Fiscal 

Year 2008 due to decreased revenue from the sale of coal from our lands. The Tribe 

is therefore reluctant to contract under Public Law 93–638 (The Indian Self-Determination Act) law enforcement programs from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

because it does not have adequate tribal funding to supplement what it anticipates 

will be an inadequate law enforcement budget. The BIA therefore continues to directly administer corrections, criminal investigations, and police services on Hopi. 

Today, ten BIA police officers patrol the entire reservation, and working three shifts 

means that often only one police officer is working an entire shift alone. One criminal investigator handles all cases involving major crime violations that are referred 

75

for Federal prosecution. Many times Federal prosecution is declined because the 

cases have not been adequately investigated. 

Programs to address domestic violence and sexual assault related issues for many 

tribes started after 1997 as a result of funding under the Office on Violence Against 

Women. Tribal prosecution offices benefit greatly from training opportunities from 

these programs and work very hard to address the cases that police officers bring 

on a regular basis. It is not unusual for my office to receive 5–7 domestic violence 

cases per week. A majority does not involve serious bodily injury and will not be 

referred for Federal prosecution. On the other hand, cases that involve offenses 

under the Major Crimes Act many times are not accepted for Federal prosecution. 

Tribal prosecutors are facing the following types of problems in prosecuting domestic violence and sexual assault cases in Indian Country.

• Investigations typically are based and/or centered on the victim. The victim 

more often than not will recant; ask for charges to be dismissed; write new 

statements blaming themselves and/or that provide a self-defense claim for the 

defendant. This unfortunately is part of the untreated victim mentality. It is 

evident that more specific and extensive training is needed for all law enforcement officers. This should include training officers to build the case around the 

victim, not on the victim. This has been referred to as ‘‘victimless’’ prosecution 

or ‘‘evidence based’’ prosecution. Both require the officer to respond to domestic 

violence calls through a completely different process and procedure from the 

traditional police response that officers are trained to use. Officers must approach the investigation assuming from the outset that the victim may, for 

whatever reason, not be reliable, which requires the officer to gather collateral 

or circumstantial evidence in abundance.

• A lack of cooperation between tribal prosecutors and Federal agencies. This is 

a problem that could be solved by memorandum from the Attorney General’s 

office to U.S. Attorneys and the Field Solicitor that represent and advise Federal agencies that operate on Indian lands. They generally are reluctant to 

allow Federal employees to be subjected to tribal court subpoenas. This includes, but is not limited to, Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement officers; 

Detention Officers; Dispatchers, Indian Health Service employees, such as doctors, nurses and other health care providers who treated the victim’s injuries. 

On Hopi, the local IHS administrators will not allow medical staff to conduct 

sexual assault examinations, which requires then sexual assault victims to be 

transported hundreds of miles to be examined. IHS medical staff often is crucial 

witnesses. These individuals work within the territorial boundaries of the Reservation and pursuant to tribal law are under the jurisdiction of the tribal 

court; however legal representatives, generally, field solicitors, will refuse to 

allow Federal employees to cooperate in the tribal court process claiming they 

are exempt because they are Federal employees. This is a ridiculous and 

counter-productive policy, as well as disrespectful of tribal sovereignty and 

tribes’ ability to self-govern. These are archaic positions whose time has passed. 

It is time for a cooperative and collective approach to all Tribal Issues by both 

the U.S. and the Tribes themselves. A practical solution is to change the Attorney General’s position and policy on these issues. Foster an attitude of cooperation with Indian Tribes especially in cases where the Tribes are simply attempting to solve the problems of their communities, while the Federal Government 

seemingly is attempting to thwart those efforts.

• There is a substantial and seemingly intentional problem of communication and 

cooperation between the U.S. Attorney’s office, Criminal Prosecution Department, Federal Law Enforcement; and Tribal Prosecutors especially on cases 

where the U.S. Supreme Court has found that both sovereigns possess ‘‘concurrent’’ jurisdiction over criminal violations that occur on Indian lands when the 

suspect is Indian. When such a case is being federally investigated, tribal prosecutors are not privileged to any information obtained or on the progress being 

made. The result of this practice is tribal prosecutors often are not aware that 

there is an ongoing investigation until a family member of the victim or the victims themselves contact the tribal prosecutor’s office inquiring on the status of 

the case. This places the tribal prosecutor in a very difficult position on several 

levels. First, we cannot provide any information much less comfort our own tribal members that are going through very difficult times. Second, our jurisdictions 

generally have one to 2-year statute of limitations for filing criminal charges in 

the tribal court even in rape, assault, sexual assault, and homicide cases. Therefore, the time that the feds have the case runs against the Tribes’ time to file 

charges. Third, the Indian Civil Rights Act limits Indian tribes to can only sentence offenders to a 1-year maximum incarceration and/or a $5,000.00 fine 

76

(maximum). Many times after the Federal investigation has been ongoing for 

6 to 8 months, the Federal investigator will forward the case to the tribal prosecutor with the announcement that the U.S. Attorney’s office has declined to 

prosecute without explanation as to the reason for declining. Tribal prosecutors 

then are forced within a relatively short timeframe to build a case, file the 

charges, and try to figure out where the U.S. Attorney felt the case was so weak 

that they had to decline. In spite of this, Tribal Prosecutor’s have still been able 

to gain convictions in these declined cases (which should raise its own inquires). 

However, as stated earlier, we can only ask for a maximum sentence of 1 year 

in jail and a $5,000.00 fine for what are sometimes egregious, violent crimes. 

Some of the issues identified could be remedied by simple policy changes by 

U.S. law enforcement agencies that provide services to Indian tribes. Other 

issues identified concerning sentencing abilities and jurisdiction over non-Indian 

offenders would require legislative action on the part of the U.S. Congress. 

Surely, the day has come for redefining and strengthening ‘‘dependent sovereign’’ in favor of the Tribes, just as it is with the States.

Nevertheless, the movement to end domestic violence in Indian Country has been 

initiated and we must not lose the momentum of change that is happening in our 

villages and communities. It is therefore more important than ever that the dialogue 

between Indian Nations and with you, as representatives of the Federal Government, continue in a respectful and meaningful way. 

The intersect between economically depressed populations, high rates of alcoholism and drug abuse, domestic violence, sexual assault, and other similar problems and conditions present on a majority, if not all, of our reservations is complex 

and will continue to require a tremendous amount of Federal dollars to enhance our 

capacity to respond to these issues. We are aware that OVW has supported demonstration initiatives for Indian country, such as the Safety for Indian Women from 

Sexual Assault Offenders Demonstration Initiative. The Hopi Tribe patiently awaits 

results from this initiative and subsequent funding opportunities to address issues 

we now have, including refusal of the reservation based Indian Health Care Service 

Unit to provide forensic sexual assault examination services, which has placed further demands on already limited resources by requiring transport of victims hundreds of miles away from the reservation and timely response to court subpoenas 

for medical staff to testify in tribal court in criminal proceedings. 

The pestilence of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking cannot be eliminated overnight. It is a persistent problem that needs to be addressed on the Hopi 

reservation year after year through services designed to work in a stark environment that lacks a stable economic base and that already is plagued with other social 

ills. The Federal Government must understand that it takes time and tremendous 

financial resources to develop the necessary infrastructure that will insure successful programs. The strides that have been made on Hopi are amazing considering the 

challenges and obstacles that the Tribe has faced, and continues to face, in implementing these programs. 

And, just when we have managed to get our heads above water, here comes the 

Adam Walsh Act with its mandates and election and implementation timelines. 

Again, without adequate resources, we are challenged with building from ground up 

a functioning sex offender registration and notification system or face the risk of 

placing tribal sovereignty in jeopardy. Do not assume that tribes fail to understand 

the importance of having a sex offender registry system. The Hopi Tribe elected to 

opted-in to the registry program as we desire our children and people to live in protected, safe, and healthy environments; however the Hopi Tribe unfortunately is one 

of the economically poorest populations in the United States, and because of its remote location in Arizona, its population is far removed from resources generally 

available to other tribes. It is therefore not surprising that the lack of available resources—experienced personnel, technology infrastructure, and financial support—

is the biggest obstacle the Tribe will face in implementing requirements of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The challenges the Hopi Tribe 

faces in complying with the Adam Walsh Act requirements include, but are not limited to: (1) remoteness and size of the reservation; (2) lack of tribal expertise to develop and maintain a website; (3) lack of trained staff to deal with collection, storage 

and disposal of DNA evidence; (4) use of traditional Hopi names for registration purposes; (5) lack of a tribal sex offender registry ordinance; and (6) collaboration with 

state, county, and other tribal governments on jurisdictional-related implementation 

issues. 

The Federal Government can play a key role by supporting and facilitating government-to-government dialogue between the tribes and with state agencies that 

77

will result in cooperative agreements to aid the tribes in implementing SORNA requirements. 

Lastly, it has become increasingly difficult to continue to ignore a glaring gap in 

the tribal criminal justice system’s ability to hold all criminal offenders accountable. 

The fact that tribes are limited to misdemeanor level authority over serious crimes 

committed by American Indians only is a matter that must be discussed. The tribal 

courts are restricted to imposing criminal punishments of no more than a $5,000 

fine and/or incarceration for 1 year, or both. We must begin the difficult, but necessary, discussion of enhancing the criminal penalties and the ability of the tribes 

to hold non-Indian offenders criminally accountable in tribal courts. Although, on 

the other hand, many tribes are currently facing serious detention issues, including 

inmate overcrowding, lack of jail facilities, dilapidating buildings and lack of trained 

staff. We have been told that there is no funding to support construction of adult 

and juvenile detention facilities for offenders. The Hopi Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs correction staff today transports inmates back and forth nearly 300 miles from 

the Hopi Reservation to Flagstaff on a daily basis. Juvenile offenders are transported for detainment to Gallup, New Mexico and Towaoc, Colorado, 300–500 roundtrip miles away, and many times are turned away because there is no available bed 

space. We must together find a better solution and more efficiently utilize the funding that is supporting the way in which this problem is being addressed. 

We must admit that these are persistent problems that the tribes need to address 

year after year with adequate Federal financial support and in collaboration with 

state agencies We look forward to working the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian 

Affairs to address crimes of violence that are being committed against Indian 

women in Indian Country by both Indian and non-Indian perpetrators alike and 

would be pleased to offer knowledgeable and dedicated leadership and staff from the 

Hopi Tribe to sit on a national advisory work group to address these important and 

complex issues. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN PARISIEN, SHELTER MANAGER, BRIDGES AGAINST

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

I have been Bridges Against Domestic Violence Shelter Manager for about eighteen months. During this period, I have worked with numerous women, mostly Native American, from several areas including but not limited to Minnesota, Montana, 

North Dakota, and primarily from Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Reservations 

in South Dakota. 

Although the situations vary, they have several things in common. These include 

fear, emotional turmoil, transportation problems, and a general lack of financial resources. One of the other things that the women have in common, is their refusal to contact law enforcement when an incident occurs. Rather, they wait until they have an 

opportunity to escape many times with only the clothes they and their children are 

wearing. 

I have found it is not uncommon on the reservations for the perpetrators of violence continue with their lives without fear of law enforcement. Many times, they 

are living in the same house where the violence occurred despite laws which state 

a woman and her children do not need to leave a home due to domestic violence. 

Due to jurisdictional issues, I have experience a disturbing failure of law enforcement to serve protection orders on abusers. If the protection order has not been 

served, the victim must resubmit the request to the court and repeat the entire 

process. This results in an unnecessary delay in helping to insure the safety of the 

woman and her children and takes up an unnecessary amount of court administrative time. 

If after the second time an order is not served, the victim has a choice of either 

giving up, once again receiving limited protection under the law which is there to 

protect her and her family, or, begin the process again. To say it could easily take 

8 weeks or more is not by any means an exaggeration. 

One of the issues, which repeatedly arises and is a major contributing factor in 

the lack of reporting, is the length of response time or lack of response time when 

law enforcement is called. The following are some of my experience since beginning 

work at Bridges:

• I was called by the Standing Rock Police Department concerning a woman who 

had been severely beaten. The officer stated to me that if she did not enter our 

shelter, she would be killed. She had numerous bruised in various stages of 

healing, cuts, blackened eyes, and was wearing a cast. I asked her if the cast 

78

was the result of this beating. She replied no. She had received the broken arm 

in a beating she had gotten 2 weeks before.

I spoke to her several times a day about her situation during her stay. In the 

course of those discussions, I learned that her abuser had told her if she tried 

to contact the police, he would kill her family. He also told her that since the 

police were so slow, he could have her family dead before the ‘‘cops’’ would even 

show up.

She told me she would like to have him prosecuted on this and we began the 

process. I had to make several telephone calls to the BIA Law Enforcement in 

Fort Yates, ND, and was sent through several offices before I could get through 

to an investigator. By the time the investigator and a FBI Agent came to interview the woman 6 weeks had passed. She said it was too late and, ‘‘See, I told 

you.’’

• I received a call concerning a young woman whom reported being physically 

beaten and raped. I again contacted the BIA Law Enforcement and requested 

than officers come down to investigate.

Once again, I had to make numerous calls in an attempt to get cooperation from 

law enforcement and was again sent from office to office. When I finally reached 

the investigator, I was told he would be down that same afternoon to interview 

the victim. He did not come down.

Another telephone call the following day said he would be down before noon. 

He again did not show up. This continued until the victim left the shelter a couple of weeks later. The police never did do an investigation.

In continuing conversations with this woman, she told me that she lived in 

daily fear of being found by her abuser.

• I worked with a woman who had been severely beaten and raped on Standing 

Rock Reservation just across the river from Mobridge. After this assault, she 

was left along the road with little clothing on and was told by the abusers that 

if she told anyone they would kill her.

She hid in the ditches for several hours while they repeatedly drove by looking 

for her. They left and she began to walk along the highway when a passerby 

picked her up and brought her to the Mobridge Police Department. She was 

brought to the Mobridge Regional Hospital for care and a rape exam.

While there, the Mobridge Chief of Police repeatedly called the Standing Rock 

BIA Law Enforcement requesting an officer to come and interview her. After 

4 hours, he was finally able to speak to a BIA officer—on the telephone—and 

assured the Chief of Police he would be down later.

The woman came to our shelter expecting to be interviewed. I called the Standing Rock BIA as an officer had not come and was told an investigator would 

be down the next morning. He did not come. After yet another call later in the 

day, I was told the investigator would be down that same afternoon. He did not 

come.

Consequently, the woman left shelter saying that if law enforcement was not 

going to do anything, she needed to leave the area fearing that the abusers 

would find her and carry out their threats.

• I received a call from a woman who said her partner had beaten her. She told 

me that he was in the area and that she had already call the Standing Rock 

police to report it.

I received another call from her a few weeks later saying that her partner had 

returned home. He had heard that she reported him and again beat her. I asked 

it he had been arrested for the first beating and she said, ‘‘no’’ and that no officer had come to interview her either.

This last beating was more severe and resulted she be in the hospital for life 

threatening injuries. Her life was saved, however, it took almost sixteen months 

before he was tried in Federal court.

While it may seem to you that these incidents are extreme, I am sorry to say they 

are the norm. I could list numerous other examples in which the same time periods 

and inability to contact or receive cooperation from law enforcement have occurred. 

Or, in which the victims have state they are afraid to call the police, even if they 

have been severely beaten, due to the slow or complete lack of response time. 

Women have a very realistic fear they may be killed while waiting for law enforcement. 

I understand that there are several reasons for the responses we have received 

when working with BIA Law Enforcement, which include but are not limited to:

79

1. Mobridge’s location borders on the Standing Rock Reservation. The examples 

listed above all occurred on the reservation but women come to Mobridge to 

shelter because there is no shelter on Standing Rock. This also places them in 

a different jurisdiction whereby local law enforcement cannot help them with 

the crime committed on the reservation.

In addition, it is worthy of note that if an assault occurs here in Mobridge, 

many times the perpetrator will go onto the reservation to escape prosecution 

and service of court papers-another jurisdictional issue.

2. Standing Rock is a large reservation covering area in two states, North and 

South Dakota. The communities within average 25–30 miles apart.

For the past few years, Standing Rock has experienced a sever shortage of law 

enforcement officer. There have been numerous times we have been told that 

there was only one officer on duty. Officers may be either in the very northern 

part of the reservation or out on another call. We have been told by Standing 

Rock dispatch that the officer would get to a woman’s call when they have time 

no matter how life threatening the situation may be.

3. Thus, it is imperative that Standing Rock BIA Law Enforcement not only fill 

the present vacancies but also consider a program review to establish more positions. Response time by officers must be cut especially when Standing Rock 

women are beaten and raped. This can only happen when there is an adequate 

number of officers on duty at any given time.

4. Adequate training on the response of law enforcement to domestic violence 

and sexual assault/rape needs to be a priority for all Standing Rock law enforcement staff. Over the past year, two trainings have been sponsored by Bridges 

Against Domestic Violence for law enforcement in Mobridge and in Fort Yates 

on Standing Rock Reservation. Both events were facilitated by certified trainers 

and were of no cost to the departments. Standing Rock law enforcement failed 

to send even one person from their department to either of these.

Domestic violence and sexual assault/rape are an unpleasant fact on the reservations lived out by the Native American women who live there. In fact, when posed 

with the question ‘‘Do you know of any woman in this community who has not been 

beaten or raped?’’ women in a small reservation community responded they did not 

know of anyone. 

Please do everything possible to help the women of Standing Rock reservation be 

safe in their homes and hold the abusers and rapes accountable for their crimes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

(SRPMIC) 

Background 

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) is located in Maricopa County, aside the boundaries of Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, Fountain Hills and 

metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. The enrolled population exceeds 8,000 and the total 

land base is 53,600 acres and maintains 19,000 acres as a natural preserve. 

We estimate that 200,000 vehicles and 100,000 non tribal people enter the Salt 

River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community on a daily basis. Some of these individuals 

are here asemployees passing through to get to and from work, for business, to utilize the retail businesses located within the Community boundary, and we anticipate that the majority of the vehicle and non tribal people are just passing through. 

We are concerned about the potential for violent attacks against our women and 

Community members in general. 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 

In 2005, Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which 

for the first time includes a Tribal Title (Title IX) that seeks to improve safety and 

justice for Native American and Alaska Native women, including by; carrying out 

a study that provides a comprehensive understanding of the scope and nature of 

sexual violence against Indigenous women and the barriers to justice Indigenous 

women survivors face; and establishing a Tribal Registry to track sex offenders and 

protection orders. VAWA would also provide critical resources to tribal authorities 

for criminal justice and victim services to respond to violent assaults against 

women. Full funding for the Violence Against Women Act is a vital and necessary 

step that the U.S. Government must take to ensure the effectiveness of these measures. The SRPMIC has developed several programs and has approved supplemental 

funding to protect our Community members. 

80

SRPMIC Domestic Violence Program 

With respect to the SRPMIC, funding ended in the year 2000. We received funding under the STOP Violence Against Women grant program and the Grants to Encourage Arrests program. When funding ended, the SRPMIC absorbed the cost for 

funding a:

• judge position dedicated to domestic violence cases.

• prosecutor dedicated to domestic violence cases.

• police officer dedicated to domestic violence cases.

• victim’s advocate to assist victims through the administrative and judicial system.

• intergovernmental task force continues to address needs of community.

• grass roots women’s advocate group continues to assist and raise awareness.

• counseling is available in the school system.

• mandatory domestic violence training was conducted for all employees.

The Community sponsors awareness events, assists in obtaining immediate shelter care, prosecutes offenders regularly, and is supportive in the movement to end 

domestic violence. 

1. Funding Issues 

Any new funding should focus on teen violence and even reach down to the grade 

school level to start awareness and promote self-esteem at an earlier age.

A. There are specific needs related to SRPMIC Domestic Violence Services, which 

are:

• funding to hire personnel to provide the ongoing support services such as the 

Intensive Outreach Services needed to just begin the building of trust between 

the Victim and the Domestic Violence Service Worker. That process entails numerous meetings with the victims.

• SRPMIC Male Victims who are in need of information and assessments are now 

coming forward asking for assistance. Their needs are different in numerous 

areas than the female victims.

• There is a need for expanded services for children involved in the domestic violence situations. Intensive services for children can help with prevention in the 

repetitive cycle of children either becoming perpetrators or victims.

B. With regards to funding under the Adam Walsh Act, the timeframe to prepare 

and submit a proposal prevented some tribes from being able to apply for funds. 

This short timeframe was contrary to the intent of distributing such funding to 

tribes with the highest needs.

2. Enhancing the Safety of Indian Women From Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, 

Sexual Assault and Stalking 

A. Alternative Housing. In Indian Country the victim is remaining in the home 

throughout the incidents that occur. With each additional incident the intensity of 

the abuse increases leading to fatalities. There is a need for alternative housing for 

either the victim or perpetrator while services are being provided and during the 

transitioning of an individual once released from a counseling program where domestic violence was a contributing factor to substance abuse.

B. Shelter. Salt River is in desperate need of a shelter(s) that understands the 

needs of the Native Community. Outside shelters create too large of a learning 

curve for a Native client to be able to survive there for a long enough period of time. 

Oftentimes, shelters will not let males stay with their families, so that older sons 

are separated from their families.

C. Program for Perpetrators. A Perpetrators Program needs to be developed. We 

send the victim and their children to counseling but they return to the same home 

without the perpetrators’ behavior changing to support the family in a healthy environment. A Perpetrators Program would require a male and a female counselor to 

conduct group sessions together, when appropriate, as well as a case manager.

3. Federal Legislation Efforts Regarding Consultation 

Subsequent legislation such as the current VAWA Act continues to keep a light 

shined on the need to address domestic violence. But one consultation a year may 

not be adequate. Further, there may be issues that are occur more in one region 

than another, so there should be consultations that address the needs more specifically. 

81

4. Federal Efforts Regarding Prosecution 

The Department of Justice should make the prosecution of offenders a high priority. This should be a nationwide policy with all U.S. Attorney’s Offices. 

5. Re-Assumption of Criminal Jurisdiction Over Non-Indian Offenders 

The Violence Against Women Act, like the Adam Walsh Act, has extensive reach 

into Indian Country. Both acts deal with the safety of women and children and the 

need to prosecute offenders. Both Acts put a tremendous burden on tribes. Tribal 

communities are very concerned for the safety of its members and residents. The 

harm being done in Indian Country was highlighted in the recent report by Amnesty International. The report stated that Department of Justice statistics found 

that:

• Native American and Alaska Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be 

raped or sexually assaulted than women in the USA in general.

• More than one-in-three Native women will be raped in their lifetimes.

• At least 86 per cent of perpetrators are non-Indian.

Currently, there is no tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit 

crimes within the jurisdiction of the Indian Community, but a tremendous burden 

to keep everyone safe. Travel through and between jurisdictions heightens the problem. Arrests and prosecution by city and Federal jurisdictions is minimal. Relationships between the tribal governments and the U.S. Government are on a government-to-government basis. In order to truly work toward making communities safe, 

jurisdiction over offenders in domestic violence and sex-offender registration must 

be returned to Indian Communities, even if on a limited basis. A pilot project should 

be developed. Eligibility should be determined on a government-to government 

basis, depending on the level of services the tribal government provided. 

6. Advisory Board 

The U.S. Department of Justice should appoint a Native American Advisory 

Board for issues that would directly impact Indian Country. This recommendation 

was raised to former U.S. Attorney Alberto Gonzales and his staff on August 27, 

2007. 

7. Support for Reauthorization of American Indian Health Care Improvement Act 

(AIHCIA) 

The reauthorization of the AIHCIA must be a priority and also supported by the 

Department of Justice. Violence Against Women and Health Care go hand in hand. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of these very important issues. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Introduction 

The Department of Justice (‘‘the Department’’ or ‘‘DOJ’’) is committed to helping 

combat violence against women in Indian Country. While we focus on investigation 

and prosecution of Federal crimes, we have a comprehensive range of efforts that 

include crime prevention and the provision of services to victims and at-risk individuals. 

The Department’s efforts in Indian Country are led by the Federal law enforcement agencies and the United States Attorneys. The United States Attorneys play 

the central role in seeking justice in Indian Country, and they are committed to 

prosecuting Federal offenses on Indian lands to the fullest extent of the law. The 

investigation and prosecution of these cases is challenging, but the United States 

Attorneys continue to dedicate resources to Indian Country and to work with tribal 

governments and law enforcement agencies to increase cooperation and to find solutions. The Office of Tribal Justice, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Civil 

Rights Division, the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community Relations 

Services, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division, among others, provide support for these efforts. The Department also works closely with our partners 

in other Federal departments and agencies and among state and tribal authorities. 

The following sections of this statement address the jurisdictional context of the 

Department’s efforts, describe some of the accomplishments of the Department with 

regard to crime in Indian Country generally and domestic violence specifically, and 

respond to recent criticisms of these efforts. 

82

1 A person is considered an ‘‘Indian’’ for purposes of Federal criminal statutes if they have Indian heritage and are recognized as an Indian by a tribe or the Federal Government. In nearly 

all cases, this is established by a person’s membership in a federally recognized Indian tribe. 2The jurisdictional framework applicable in Indian Country is subject to adjustment by Congress, and Congress has done so in a number of cases. Most notably, Public Law 83–280, 18 

U.S.C. sec. 1162, required six states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon and Wisconsin—to assume jurisdiction over Indian Country crimes and divested the Federal Government of jurisdiction to prosecute under the Major and Indian Country Crimes Acts in those 

areas, while giving other states the option to assume that jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. sec. 1321. 

Background 

Indian Country criminal justice issues are complex because of the unique relationship of the Federal Government to the hundreds of tribes, whose sovereign authority 

we are obligated to respect. In most areas of Indian Country, the Federal Government, Indian tribes, and states share responsibility for prosecuting crimes, depending on the nature of the offense and whether the victim or perpetrator of the crime 

is Indian or non-Indian. 1 Jurisdictional issues, therefore, play a substantial role in 

determining the path a criminal case in Indian Country takes. For example, first 

responders to violent crime incidents in Indian Country are most often tribal or the 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) police. In the case of 

Public Law 280 jurisdictions, state or local police are often the first responders to 

a call for assistance. Subsequent investigation of violent crimes can be initiated by 

tribal investigators, state or local detectives, BIA Criminal Investigators, or Special 

Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), among others, depending on 

the jurisdiction. Finally, violent crimes occurring in Indian Country may be addressed in tribal, state, or Federal court, depending on the severity of the matter 

and the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. 

The following paragraphs provide some background on this complex subject. 

Federal criminal jurisdiction. There are two main Federal statutes governing Federal criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country: 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and § 1153. Section 

1153, known as the Major Crimes Act, gives the Federal Government jurisdiction 

to prosecute certain enumerated serious offenses, such as murder, manslaughter, 

rape, aggravated assault, and child sexual abuse, when they are committed by Indians in Indian Country. Among other things, Section 1152, known as the Indian 

Country or Inter-racial Crimes Act, gives the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute all crimes committed by non-Indians against Indian victims. The 

Federal Government also has jurisdiction to prosecute Federal crimes of general application, meaning those that do not require Federal territorial jurisdiction as an 

element such as drug and financial crimes, when they occur in Indian Country. Finally, the Federal Government prosecutes certain specific offenses designed to protect tribal communities, such as bootlegging in Indian Country, theft from a tribal 

organization or casino, unlawful hunting on tribal lands, and entering or leaving Indian Country with the intent to stalk or commit domestic abuse. The FBI, the BIA, 

and tribal law enforcement share responsibility for investigating Federal Indian 

Country offenses. In most cases, tribal law enforcement acts as first responders to 

Federal Indian Country offenses in their communities. 

Tribal criminal jurisdiction. As part of their inherent sovereignty, Indian tribes 

have jurisdiction to prosecute all crimes by Indians in Indian Country. Tribes have 

exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute minor crimes between Indians, and, under section 

1152, the option to prosecute minor crimes by Indians against non-Indians and 

thereby preclude a Federal prosecution for the same offense. Tribes also have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute Major Crimes, although tribes are limited by statute to imposing 1-year prison sentences and $5,000 fines. Most tribal offenses are 

investigated by tribal law enforcement or the BIA, although the FBI may investigate crimes by Indians against non-Indians, which are often subsequently prosecuted by tribes if the local United States Attorney’s Office refers the case. 

State criminal jurisdiction. States have jurisdiction to prosecute offenses in Indian 

Country where both the victim and perpetrator are non-Indian, as well as 

‘‘victimless’’ crimes by non-Indians. It should also be noted that Congress has authority to adjust criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, and, in some cases, has 

delegated Federal responsibility for prosecuting Indian Country crimes to particular 

states or with respect to specific areas of Indian Country. As a result, under Public 

Law 280 and other related statutes, some states have jurisdiction to prosecute 

crimes by Indians in Indian Country, including Major Crimes and Inter-racial 

Crimes and even crimes between Indians. 2 Depending on the particular statutory 

scheme, that jurisdiction may be exclusive of or concurrent with Federal jurisdiction. State offenses are investigated by state and local authorities, although, again, 

it is common for tribal law enforcement to act as first responders to crimes in their 

83

communities, even when they involve only non-Indians. Many tribes and local law 

enforcement agencies have arranged cross-deputization or other cooperative schemes 

to accommodate their shared responsibilities for and interests in law enforcement 

in Indian communities. 

These jurisdictional issues form the background and context for DOJ efforts in Indian Country, which we will now describe. 

DOJ Efforts to Combat Crime Generally in Indian Country 

Of the ninety-three Federal judicial districts, twenty-nine have some Indian lands 

within their jurisdiction. Each of these districts has at least one tribal liaison, an 

Assistant United States Attorney who is responsible for coordinating Indian Country 

relations and prosecutions. There are currently forty-four Assistant United States 

Attorneys serving as tribal liaisons. The tribal liaisons work diligently to identify 

and respond to the needs of the tribes within their districts. Because each tribe is 

a sovereign, and the challenges they face are diverse, solutions and strategies are 

best developed at the local level, in close consultation with the tribal government 

and, where possible, the state and local governments and the BIA. 

The cases the Department prosecutes in Indian Country represent some of our 

most important and challenging work. Seldom do Federal prosecutors have the opportunity to work as closely with victims and communities as we do in Indian Country. That said, prosecuting violent crime, particularly sexual assault or domestic violence cases, poses unique challenges. These cases are some of the most difficult 

crimes to prosecute in any jurisdiction. By their very nature, these crimes involve 

the most intimate subjects and relationships, creating unique testimonial issues. In 

predominantly rural Indian Country, the vast distances police must travel often 

make it difficult for officers to timely secure crimes scenes, and thus also more difficult to collect and preserve evidence for use at trial. These difficulties are not reasons to forego prosecutions, only complicating factors that must be addressed in any 

prosecution. 

Even with these challenges, the Department’s dedicated public servants are successfully prosecuting cases in Indian Country. For example, in FY 2006, the last 

complete year for which statistics are available, the Department filed 606 cases 

against 688 defendants in Indian Country. That is nearly 5 percent higher than the 

average since 1994 of 580 cases against 643 defendants per year. In the same year, 

82 cases went to trial, 13.8 percent more than the average of 72 cases each year 

since 1994. Finally, the conviction rate for Indian Country prosecutions in FY 2006 

was 89.4 percent, slightly higher than the 86.2 percent average since 1994. Approximately 25 percent of all violent crimes investigated by United States Attorneys nationally occur in Indian Country. 

The FBI also plays a significant role in Indian Country. Even in this time of 

heightened awareness of and demands on the FBI from terrorism investigations, Indian Country law enforcement remains important to the FBI. Notably, since 2001, 

the FBI has increased the number of agents working Indian Country cases by 7 percent. 

The FBI investigates serious crimes in Indian Country, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, incest, assault with intent to commit murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, assault 

against person under age 16, arson, burglary, robbery, felony theft, and narcotics 

trafficking. Currently, two-thirds of the FBI’s investigations fall into three top priority areas: homicide, child sexual and physical abuse, and felony assaults (including adult rape). 

The FBI also utilizes the Joint Indian Country Training Initiative with the BIA 

to sponsor and promote training activities pertaining to drug trafficking. In FY 

2007, the FBI will have provided more than 30 training conferences for local, tribal, 

and Federal investigators regarding gang assessment, crime scene processing, child 

abuse investigations, forensic interviewing of children, homicide investigations, 

interviewing and interrogation, officer safety and survival, crisis negotiation, and Indian gaming. Furthermore, the FBI’s Office for Victim Assistance dedicates 31 Victim Specialists to Indian Country, serving 38 Indian tribes. The Victim Specialists 

dedicated to Indian Country represent approximately one third of the entire Victim 

Specialist work force. 

Improving State, Local, and Tribal Capabilities to Fight Crime in Indian 

Country 

In an effort to further strengthen the criminal justice response to crimes in Indian 

Country, the Department has joined with the BIA to train and commission state, 

local, and tribal law-enforcement officers so that they can properly exercise Federal 

jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit Federal crimes in Indian Country. This 

84

cross deputization, or cross commissioning, of state, local, and tribal law enforcement increases the number of law-enforcement officials on the ground in Indian 

Country—all at little or no cost to the state, local, or tribal governments. 

Although the BIA is responsible for law enforcement in Indian Country, state, 

local, and tribal governments regularly assist the BIA in responding to emergencies 

in Indian Country; however, the assisting agencies often do so without the ability 

to fully investigate and enforce Federal laws because the agencies lack Federal law 

enforcement training and credentials. To resolve this problem, the BIA for many 

years has trained tribal, state and local officers, giving them an opportunity to take 

an examination and if successful, receive Federal law enforcement commissions 

through the BIA. Unfortunately, many state, local, and tribal officers were not taking advantage of this training program, in part because of a lack of regional and 

local access to the training. 

Recognizing that the training program was not being fully utilized, the Department and the BIA in February 2007 initiated a pilot program in the District of Colorado to allow the United States Attorney’s Offices to offer local and regional training 

sessions. The program, hosted by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, consisted of a 2-

day training session ending with an optional Special Law Enforcement Commission 

examination administered by the BIA to cross-commission officers. This 2-day pilot 

program resulted in the cross-commissioning of 40 officers, making the program a 

resounding success. 

In the months since the pilot program, more than 100 tribal, state, and local law 

enforcement officers have been successfully trained under this pilot program in the 

District of Colorado and have passed the required BIA test for cross-deputization. 

Moreover, based on the success of the pilot program, the Department initiated a 

‘‘train the trainer’’ program in August of 2007 to train Assistant United States Attorneys serving as tribal liaisons throughout the country to offer the cross-deputization training and test in and around their respective districts. Also, in November 

of 2007, the Department and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 

will be sponsoring a special cross-deputization training and testing course to be held 

in conjunction with NCAI’s national convention in Denver, Colorado. This course is 

expected to be attended by law enforcement officers from Indian tribes across the 

United States. 

The Department is committed to the success of the training program, which allows officers to cross jurisdictional lines with the ability to fully enforce Federal 

statutes against those who would commit crimes in Indian Country. With the full 

participation of tribal, local, and state agencies, this program will maximize resources, thereby offering greater protection to those living in Indian Country. 

The Strategic Federal Response to Violence Against Women in Indian 

Country 

The Department’s efforts to combat crime in Indian Country, as described above, 

include the issue of domestic violence. In fact, in November 2002, the Native American Issues Subcommittee (NAIS) of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of 

U.S. Attorneys made family violence in Indian Country, including sexual assault 

against women, a priority. In February 2003, NAIS adopted the recommendations 

of a working group tasked with developing a strategic Federal response to violence 

against women in Indian Country. 

In response to these recommendations, members of NAIS worked with staff at 

DOJ’s National Advocacy Center training facility to develop training opportunities 

for Federal and tribal participants focused on domestic violence in Indian Country. 

The training events were held in June 2003 in Seattle, Washington, and May 2004 

in Phoenix, Arizona. Both trainings convened tribal and Federal advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors, and national subject matter experts to learn in a collaborative model how to better assist domestic violence victims and to hold offenders accountable. In January 2006, a new course was offered for Federal prosecutors and 

investigators at the NAC. The course title was ‘‘Prosecuting Federal Sexual Assault 

Cases Seminar.’’ This training focused on issues specific to sexual assault cases, including medical evidence, DNA, special interview techniques, pretrial motions, the 

use of expert witnesses, and crime scene investigation. The last half-day of the 

training was dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault in Indian Country. 

In addition, the majority of the NAIS legislative recommendations were incorporated into the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–162), enacted on January 5, 2006. The NAIS proposals, 

now a part of the Act, include the addition of tribal court convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), warrantless arrest authority for BIA officers in certain cases of domestic violence, and increased penalties for 

85

repeat domestic violence offenders. We believe that these laws will prove to be powerful tools in addressing domestic violence in Indian Country. 

DOJ Funding Support for Domestic Violence Prevention and Victim Services 

The Department not only prosecutes crime in Indian Country, but also funds efforts to reduce crime in Indian Country, including Indian Country over which the 

states, not the Federal Government, have primary jurisdiction. Over the past 6 

years, the Department has provided more than $642 million to tribal governments 

and law enforcement agencies through the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, and, especially, the Office on Violence 

Against Women (OVW). 

At the heart of OVW’s mission is the charge to help communities across the country to develop a coordinated community response to crimes of violence committed 

against women by using the force and effect of the criminal justice system to promote victim safety and offender accountability. Resource issues result in many 

tribes struggling to provide critical criminal justice infrastructure, such as law enforcement officers, courts, and prosecutors. Many tribes that do operate their own 

criminal justice systems struggle to fully fund such agencies. These infrastructure 

gaps can jeopardize the safety of all Native Americans, including Indian women. 

OVW grant programs have provided Indian tribal governments the opportunity to 

obtain funding to hire dedicated criminal justice professionals who can focus their 

efforts exclusively on responding to violence against Indian women. 

Since its creation in 1995 following the enactment of the Violence Against Women 

Act (VAWA), OVW has awarded more than $100 million to Indian tribal governments, tribal nonprofit organizations, and tribal coalitions to combat domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and teen dating violence. In Fiscal Year 2007 alone, 

OVW awarded approximately $47 million in grant funding to Indian tribes and 

other non-profit organizations to address violence committed against Indian women. 

OVW currently funds more than 110 tribal governments and nonprofit organizations 

that serve more than 200 tribal communities. While much remains to be done to 

effectively address the high rate of sexual assault and domestic violence committed 

against Indian women, OVW, since its inception, has provided an array of resources 

to assist in this effort. 

For example, through its Technical Assistance Initiative, OVW has sought to provide a broad range of very practical solutions to help tribal governments become 

more engaged in preventing domestic violence and sexual assault among their members. Over the past few years, OVW has supported several training and technical 

assistance events for its tribal grantees that have focused on sexual assault. The 

Southwest Center for Law and Policy, for example, has used OVW funding to support its highly successful National Tribal Trial Training College (NTTC). The goal 

of the NTTC is to provide Indian Country victim advocates, civil legal assistance attorneys, and criminal justice, social services, and health care professionals with the 

skills necessary to improve the adjudication of violence against Indian women cases 

in Federal, state and tribal courts. Previous NTTC training topics have covered forensic and special investigation issues in sexual assault, domestic violence, and 

stalking cases for tribal prosecutors and tribal law enforcement officers; developing 

effective responses to the intersection of stalking and sexual assault in Indian Country; and the development of trial skills for Indian Country sexual assault nurse examiners, health care practitioners, social services providers, and victim advocates in 

cases of sexual assault against Indian women. The most recent NTTC training was 

held in Seattle, Washington, this past July and focused on developing the capacity 

of tribal court judges and tribal court personnel to adjudicate sexual assault cases. 

An Assistant United States Attorney, specializing in the prosecution of violent crime 

in Indian Country, participated as faculty at this training. 

In addition to tribal governments, through the Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Program (Tribal Coalitions Program), OVW funds broad antiviolence coalitions of grassroots community organizations, often composed of affected 

women who assume a leadership role in advocating for systemic change. Funding 

from the Tribal Coalitions Program currently supports the operation of twenty-two 

tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalition programs across Indian Country. The tribal coalitions funded by OVW provide training to both Native and nonNative organizations and agencies that serve Indian victims of domestic violence, 

sexual assault, and dating violence. They also conduct public awareness and community education campaigns in tribal communities to increase the public’s understanding of violence committed against Indian women, and provide technical assistance to the tribal government victim services programs and tribal nonprofit programs that make up their membership. The work that these coalitions have done 

86

3 American Indians and Crime, A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992–2002 is available at: http://

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/aic02.htm.

with Indian tribal government leaders and community members, as well as Federal, 

state, and local leaders, to raise awareness about violence committed against Indian 

women has had a tremendous impact on national policy. 

The Department also believes that access to forensic medical examinations is critical to both the successful prosecution of sex offenders and the recovery of victims. 

Ideally, all persons who report or disclose a recent sexual assault—including Native 

American women—should have access to specially educated and clinically prepared 

sexual assault forensic examiners (SAFEs) who can validate and address their 

health concerns, minimize their trauma, promote their healing, and maximize the 

detection, collection, preservation, and documentation of physical evidence related to 

the assault for potential use in the legal system. 

To advance the goal of increased access to SAFE professionals, the Department 

has funded two technical assistance projects. First, OVW entered into a cooperative 

agreement with the International Association of Forensic Nurses to disseminate the 

Attorney General’s National Protocol for Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations (the 

Safe Protocol) and to assist jurisdictions with implementation of such protocols. Second, OVW and the National Institute of Justice jointly made an award to the Interactive Media Laboratory at Dartmouth Medical School to develop an advanced distance learning program, known as the SAFE Virtual Practicum, for health care 

practitioners who perform or may perform sexual assault forensic medical examinations. The SAFE Practicum walks students through the steps of a forensic medical 

exam, guided by the process outlined in the SAFE protocol. It also includes a virtual 

clinic with clients and mentors, lectures, and interviews with experts and victims. 

The Department anticipates that the completed Practicum will be available to practitioners this fall. 

Finally, three of the Department’s Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant 

programs fund or encourage improved access to forensic medical exams. First, since 

its enactment in 1994, VAWA has mandated that, in order to receive STOP Violence 

Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) funds, states must certify 

that victims will not incur the full out-of-pocket costs of forensic medical exams. 42 

U.S.C. § 3796gg-4(a)(1). The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 amended this requirement to permit states to use STOP 

funding to pay for those forensic medical exams. This amendment took effect in Fiscal Year 2007. In addition, since the inception of the STOP Program, states may 

use STOP funds for expenses related to the forensic exams, such as purchasing rape 

kits and forensic equipment, training medical professionals to perform the exams, 

and witness fees for those medical professionals. Tribes are eligible to receive STOP 

funds as sub-grantees of states. Second, under the Grants to Indian Tribal Governments Program, tribes may choose to fund forensic medical exams, including personnel, training and equipment costs. Third, under the Rural Domestic Violence, 

Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, Stalking, and Child Abuse Enforcement Assistance 

Program, grantees—including Indian tribal governments and tribal nonprofit organizations—may use program funds to improve access to forensic medical exams. 

Responses to Recent Critiques of DOJ Efforts 

As discussed earlier in this testimony, the Department continues to work with 

tribal governments and tribal entities to prevent and respond to domestic violence 

and sexual assault in Indian Country in a variety of ways. Recently, statistics have 

been cited for the proposition that high levels of violent crime in Indian Country 

are not being addressed by Federal law enforcement. These accusations are largely 

based on misreadings of statistical studies that deal with a subject that is inherently difficult to quantify. It is unfortunate that this misunderstanding has detracted from the successful work being done by tribal, Federal, and state prosecutors 

to eradicate sexual violence in Indian Country. 

One of the Department’s studies that has been misunderstood in relation to Indian Country is American Indians and Crime, A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992–2002,

which relies on the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to provide data on 

the level and nature of victimization among American Indians in the general population. 3 Although American Indians and Crime is a significant publication, the data 

in the report primarily reflect the experience of Native Americans living outside of 

Indian Country. Less than one-third of 1 percent of households in the NCVS sample 

are occupied by Indians residing in Indian Country. This sample size is insufficient 

to produce a reliable estimate. Thus, the statistics in that report cannot, and do not, 

speak to crime occurring in Indian Country. Instead, the report is reflective of those 

87

crimes occurring outside of Indian Country, an area in which Federal jurisdiction 

is limited by the Constitution and the Congress. 

In addition, even considering the unreliable sample size of households in Indian 

Country, the NCVS cannot generate estimates of violence on reservations, in tribal 

communities, or on trust lands because the sampled households in NCVS are derived from geographic units that include reservations, but do not uniquely identify 

them. Moreover, during NCVS interviews, Native Americans self-identify themselves, but do not provide details of tribal affiliation. As a result, the NCVS sample 

is not reflective of Indian Country and can only provide estimates of victimization 

rates among American Indians residing off the reservation, where the states, not the 

Federal Government, are responsible for general crimes of violence. 

That said, the Department recognizes the need for better data on crime occurring 

in Indian Country and, consequently, has increased its efforts in this field. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) is working with State Statistical Analysis Centers 

(SACs) to generate State Based Tribal Crime Reports. BJS has actively sought to 

generate estimates that compare tribal (reservation or tribal community) crime to 

jurisdictions adjacent to the reservations. This localized comparison provides a truer 

picture of criminal activity on tribal lands than does an aggregated national average 

that is possibly skewed for a variety of factors. BJS is currently working with BIA 

to obtain such data from six states (including data from 40 tribes) in the West. 

In addition, the Department is currently in the process of establishing a task force 

to assist the Department in conducting a National Baseline Study to Examine Violence Against Women in Indian Country under VAWA 2005. The members of the 

task force will possess a broad and varied knowledge of the complexities of Federal 

Indian law, the nature of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 

stalking committed against American Indian and Alaskan Native women, and the 

cultural considerations that must be observed when conducting research in tribal 

communities. OVW is working to ensure that the proposed nominees will maintain 

a geographic balance representative of many of the challenges unique to Indian 

Country. In creating the task force, the Department is taking steps to ensure that 

the task force is established as a Federal advisory committee under the provisions 

established by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 

This task force will assist the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the development and implementation of a national baseline study to examine violence against 

Indian women in Indian Country. In particular, the NIJ study will examine the 

types and magnitude of violence against women in Indian Country; will evaluate the 

effectiveness of Federal, state, and local responses to violence against native women; 

and will propose recommendations to increase the effectiveness of these responses. 

Within the study, the crimes that will be reviewed include domestic violence, sexual 

assault, dating violence, stalking, and murder. 

Finally, statistics alone do not convey the on-the-ground reality of DOJ’s efforts. 

For example, many districts with Indian Country responsibilities have dedicated 

specific task forces, government-to-government meetings, or multidisciplinary teams 

organized to work cooperatively with the tribes on issues related to sexual assault. 

Moreover, significant liaison work performed by Assistant United States Attorneys 

and victim’s advocates with the tribes is not susceptible to statistical description. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Justice recognizes and is committed to helping meet the law 

enforcement challenges in Indian Country, including in the area of domestic violence 

and sexual assault. The Department believes that each tribe, as a sovereign government, is best positioned to craft sustainable, culturally appropriate, and effective solutions to the diverse problems they face. However, the Federal Government is a 

vital partner in these efforts, and the Department will continue to work with tribes, 

state and local law enforcement, and the Department of Interior to meet these challenges. 

88


927b1.eps
89


927b2.eps
90


927bs1.eps
91


927bs2.eps
92


927bs3.eps
93


927bs4.eps
94


927bs5.eps
95


927bs6.eps
96


927bs7.eps
97


927bs8.eps
98


927bs9.eps
99


927bs10.eps
100


927bs11.eps
101


927bs12.eps
102


927bs13.eps
103


927bs14.eps
104


927bs16.eps
105


927bs15.eps
106


927bs17.eps
107


927bs18.eps
108


927bs19.eps
109


927bs20.eps
110


927bs21.eps
111


927bs22.eps
112


927bs23.eps
113


927bs24.eps
114


927bs25.eps
115


927bs26.eps
116


927bs27.eps
117


927bs28.eps
118


927bs29.eps
119


927bs30.eps
120


927bs31.eps
121


927bs32.eps
122


927bs33.eps
123


927bs34.eps
124


927bs35.eps
125


927bs36.eps
126


927bs37.eps
127


927bs38.eps
128


927bs39.eps
129


927bs40.eps
130


927bs41.eps
131


927bs42.eps
132


927bs43.eps
133


927bs43a.eps
134


927bs44.eps
135


927bs45.eps
136


927bs46.eps
137


927bs47.eps
138


927bs48.eps
139


927bs49.eps
140


927bs50.eps
141


927bs51.eps
142


927bs52.eps
143


927bs53.eps
144


927bs54.eps
145


927bs55.eps
146


927bs56.eps
147


927bs57.eps
148


927bs58.eps
149


927bs59.eps
150


927bs60.eps
151


927bs61.eps
152


927bs62.eps
153


927bs63.eps
154


927bs64.eps
155


927bs65.eps
156


927bs66.eps
157


927bs67.eps
158


927bs68.eps
159


927bs69.eps
160


927bs70.eps
161


927bs71.eps
162


927bs72.eps
163


927bs73.eps
164


927bs74.eps
165


927bs75.eps
166


927bs76.eps
167


927bs77.eps
168


927bs78.eps
169


927bs79.eps
170


927bs80.eps
171


927bs81.eps
172


927bs82.eps
173


927bs83.eps
174


927bs84.eps
175


927bs85.eps
176


927bs86.eps
177


927bs87.eps
178


927bs88.eps
179


927bs89.eps
180


927bs90.eps
181


927bs91.eps
182


927bs92.eps
183


927bs93.eps
184


927bs94.eps
185


927bs95.eps
186


927bs96.eps
187


927bs97.eps
188


927bs98.eps
189


927bs99.eps
190


927bs100.eps
191


927bs101.eps
192


927bs102.eps
193


927bs103.eps
194


927bs104.eps
195


927bs105.eps
196


927bs106.eps
197


927bs107.eps
198


927bs108.eps
199


927bs109.eps
200


927bs110.eps
201


927bs111.eps
202


927bs112.eps
203


927bs113.eps
204


927bs114.eps
205


927bs115.eps
206


927bs116.eps
207


927bs117.eps
208


927bs118.eps
209


927bs119.eps
210


927bs120.eps
211


927bs121.eps
212


927bs122.eps
213


927bs123.eps
214


927bs124.eps
215


927bs125.eps
216


927bs126.eps
217


927bs127.eps
218


927bs128.eps
219


927f7.eps
220


927f2.eps
221


927f3.eps
222


927f4.eps
223


927f5.eps
224


927f6.eps
225


927f1.eps
226


927f8.eps
227


927f9.eps
228


927f10.eps
229


927f11.eps
230

Æ


927f12.eps