"They took me to jail because they had to insulate themselves.... They had to give me to bigger powers," Ntshanga said. "There was no way they could stop halfway."

In an interview yesterday, University Attorney Allan A. Ryan made a significant shift in Harvard's justification for taking Ntshanga to jail after the 1992. Last spring, Ryan insisted that Harvard officers honestly believed Ntshanga to be guilty of trespassing.

Yesterday, however, Ryan said Harvard had to bring Ntshanga before a judge because of the liability risks to the University.

Ryan said a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision requires police to promptly bring any person they arrest before a judge. If officers don't do this, Ryan said, the police department can be sued for wrongful arrest.

The attorney said yesterday that the University was exploring ways to reform Harvard's policy to prevent a repeat of the 1992 arrest.

"We are looking at this policy as a result of this case to see whether we can change it unilaterally for the Harvard police without exposing them to liability," Ryan said.

Ryan said yesterday that the 1992 incident has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

But Ntshanga's attorney, Harvey A. Silverglate, said the case's resolution is not just.

"While it may be that individual justice will not be done in the Ntshanga case because HUPD officers involved appear to have an excessive-degree of autonomy and immunity even when they act badly," Silverglate said in a statement yesterday, "there is some hope that future such incidents might be averted by appropriate changes in HUPD's operating rules and procedures."

Silverglate added: "Mr. Ntshanga is as much interested in institutional change as he is in obtaining justice in his individual case.