Web pages about "UK"

Video: Protest launches tour against enforced disappearance in Pakistan

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:56:38 +0100

Amnesty International called on the Pakistan government to reveal the fate and whereabouts of hundreds of disappeared people, amid international protests to mark the 25th International Day of the Disappeared on Saturday 30 August.

Amina Janjua, the founder of Defence of Human Rights, a Pakistani organisation that campaigns for the release of the disappeared, was joined by Amnesty International activists to demonstrate outside the Pakistani High Commission in London. They chanted “Justice now for the disappeared” and handed over a petition. The demonstration marked the start of an international tour by Amina Janjua, supported by Amnesty International.

Video placeholder

UK: Government must provide information about rendition, disappearance and torture

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:56:32 +0100

Amnesty International today called on the government of the UK to give the lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, a former UK resident imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, information which it holds and which might help him to show that he has been a victim of torture and other ill-treatment in the US-led programme of renditions and secret detention.

"Providing this information would be a first step towards accountability for the UK's involvement in the US programme of rendition and secret detention, and in the torture and other ill-treatment of terrorist suspects," said Halya Gowan, a spokesperson on Europe at Amnesty International.

Binyam Mohamed was arrested at Karachi airport in April 2002 and handed over into US custody three months later. In July 2002, he was transferred on a CIA-registered plane to Morocco, where he was held for about 18 months and allegedly tortured, including by having his penis cut by a razor blade. He was allegedly subjected to further torture after his further rendition to the "dark prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan, in January 2004. After five months, he was transferred to the US airbase in Bagram, and suffered further alleged ill-treatment there, before being transferred in mid-September 2004 to Guantánamo where he has remained ever since.

"Statements that Binyam Mohamed made in the course of his unlawful detention will form the basis of charges against him if he is tried before a Military Commission at Guantánamo Bay - a trial which would be unfair, and could involve charges which could be punishable by death. Any information which the UK authorities have which relates to violations of his human rights or could help Binyam Mohamed's defence should be disclosed to his lawyers without any further delay", said Halya Gowan.

Following last week's ruling by the High Court of England and Wales that the UK had a duty to disclose this information to lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, today the High Court postponed its decision on an application made by the UK Foreign Secretary to be allowed to withhold this information. The Foreign Secretary claimed that its disclosure would damage the UK's intelligence-sharing arrangements with the USA, and thus threaten the UK's national security. The Foreign Secretary has been given another week to provide the court with a fuller explanation for continuing to withhold this information.

Binyam Mohamed's lawyers need the information now, before a decision is taken about whether he should be tried by a Military Commission in the USA. It is essential to their claim that the information on which the charges against him are based was improperly obtained.

Recent revelations of secret detainee transfers through Diego Garcia, and around the UK's involvement in the rendition and secret detention of UK residents Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, show that the UK can no longer hide its involvement in these human rights violations.

"Secrecy with the excuse of protecting diplomatic relations can no longer be used to justify the failure to investigate the involvement of UK agents in human rights violations," Halya Gowan said.

Amnesty International calls on the UK authorities to instigate without further delay a genuinely independent and impartial public inquiry into all allegations of UK involvement in the renditions programme.

BACKGROUND
Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian national, claims that he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan and Guantánamo and that statements he made - which, as the High Court accepted, will form the basis of evidence against him if he is tried by a Military Commission - were the products of his unlawful detention, torture and ill-treatment.

In August 2007, after a sustained campaign by human rights activists and lawyers in the UK, the UK government requested the release from Guantánamo Bay and return to the UK of a number of former UK residents, including Binyam Mohamed. Although three men were returned in December 2007, the US authorities refused the request for the release and return of Binyam Mohamed. The UK authorities say that they are continuing to request the release and return of Binyam Mohamed.

The UK government has disclosed the information that it holds about Binyam Mohamed to the US authorities; and the US authorities have given the UK a promise that this information will be given to Binyam Mohamed's military lawyer in the event that his case should be sent for trial before a Military Commission. But to date neither the UK nor the US has disclosed that information, which is relevant to the rendition of Binyam Mohamed and his subsequent treatment in detention, to his lawyers.

Amnesty International believes that the Military Commission procedures at Guantánamo Bay are fundamentally unfair, and has called for the Military Commission system to be abandoned, and for all those still held at Guantánamo Bay to be released or given a genuinely fair trial before federal civilian courts without delay.

UK Ministry of Defence agrees to compensate Iraqi torture victims

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:14:34 +0100

The family of an Iraqi hotel receptionist who died after being tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by UK troops in Basra, Iraq, will be paid compensation by the UK Ministry of Defence.

Almost £3 million will be paid in recognition of the grave human rights violations to which he, and others detained at the same time as him, were subjected by members of the UK armed forces.

Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old father of two, died in September 2003. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries on his body. A number of Iraqis detained at around the same time as him were also tortured and ill-treated.

It was announced on Thursday, 10 July, that the amount of compensation paid will total £2.83 million ($5.59 million), to be divided between the family of Baha Mousa and nine other men who were detained alongside him.

According to the lawyers who acted for him in the compensation claim, Baha Mousa’s father, Colonel Daoud Mousa, a former colonel in the Iraqi police force, said about the compensation award: “The death of my son is with me every day of my life. Today’s settlement will ease a little of that pain and will go some way to enabling his children and my grandchildren to rebuild their lives.”

Amnesty International said that it considers that this award of compensation is a necessary, although extremely belated, acknowledgement of the grave human rights violations to which Baha Mousa and those detained alongside him were subjected, and a step towards making reparation for those violations.

Amnesty International has been campaigning for the UK to hold a genuinely full, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into all of the circumstances of the torture and death of Baha Mousa, and the torture of other Iraqi nationals held alongside him.

In May 2008 the Ministry of Defence finally announced that a public inquiry would be held. The terms of reference of the inquiry are yet to be announced, but it has been confirmed that it will be held within the framework of the Inquiries Act 2005.

Amnesty International has long considered that any inquiry held under this legislation into an allegation of serious human rights violations will not be independent enough from the government for the inquiry to meet the standards required by international human rights law.

UK MPs vote to extend pre-charge detention

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:26:31 +0100

UK Members of Parliament voted on Wednesday to extend yet further the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terror suspects. Amnesty International has called the vote "a dangerous and disappointing development."

"It risks moving the law in the UK even further away from fundamental principles of fairness and the protection of human rights," the organisation said.

This afternoon, the House of Commons – the lower, elected house of the UK Parliament – supported, by 315 votes to 306, proposals to give a government minister the power to extend from 28 to 42 days the period for which people suspected of involvement in terrorism can be detained by the police in the UK without being charged with any offence.

"No government minister should be able to invoke a power which would allow the police to hold people for six weeks without charging them with a criminal offence," said Amnesty International.

"People who are detained have a right to be charged promptly, or to be released: the law in the UK is moving further and further away from this basic principle and in so doing is increasing the scope for arbitrary detention and other violations of human rights."

Today's vote showed that members of the House of Commons may have been persuaded by last-minute concessions by the government that were claimed to provide safeguards for the exercise of this power. Amnesty International said that these concessions do not address the fundamental injustice of allowing an individual to be held for up to six weeks on the strength of a mere suspicion, without being charged with any offence.

The legislation now goes to the upper house – the House of Lords – for their consideration. Amnesty International said that the organisation will be calling on the members of the House of Lords to reject this proposal, and to give very careful scrutiny to some other worrying aspects of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Amnesty International renewed its call to the UK government to listen to the large number of MPs who voted against this dangerous and ill-conceived measure, and to the wide range of experts who have expressed the most pressing concerns about it, and to abandon it once and for all.

"Instead of allowing people to be held for longer and longer without being charged, the UK government should be committing itself to a root-and-branch review of all counter-terrorism legislation in the UK, with the aim of bringing it into line with basic international human rights standards – standards which protect the rights of individuals, including the right to be treated fairly and the right not to be detained arbitrarily for a prolonged period of time," Amnesty International said.

"The idea that countering terrorism somehow requires removing or eroding basic guarantees of individual liberty and physical safety is a dangerous and discredited one; the government should reject it once and for all."

UK inquiry into torture and death of Iraqi in UK custody must be independent

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:01:04 +0100

Amnesty International has welcomed the public inquiry into the case of an Iraqi hotel receptionist who died after being tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by UK troops in Basra.

Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old father of two, died in September 2003. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries on his body.

Amnesty International said: "This recognition by the UK authorities of the need for a full public inquiry into the case is long-overdue. The family of Baha Mousa and their legal representatives, along with NGOs, including Amnesty International, have spent years campaigning for such an inquiry.

"It should not have taken so long for the UK authorities to acknowledge that an inquiry was needed, given the shocking facts of this case and the obvious inadequacies of the initial investigations," the organization said.

“What is now needed – at the very least – is a genuinely full, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into all of the circumstances of the torture and death of Baha Mousa, and the torture of a number of other Iraqi nationals detained at around the same time as him,” said Amnesty International.

Amnesty International has called for the inquiry to be given a broad enough remit to allow it to fully investigate how, when, where, why and by whom the advice was given that it was lawful for members of the UK armed forces to ‘condition’ detainees by the use of techniques such as hooding, sleep deprivation and placing in stress positions.

These techniques have long been outlawed in the UK, but had become, in the words of the judge presiding over the court martial arising from the case in 2007, “standard operating procedure” among the troops responsible for detaining Baha Mousa. The judge hearing the court martial described it as “a serious failing in the chain of command all the way up to Brigade and beyond”.

The terms of reference of the inquiry in this case are yet to be announced, but it has been confirmed that the intention is to hold it under the controversial Inquiries Act 2005. Amnesty International believes that this would damage the inquiry’s independence, impartiality and thoroughness. An inquiry under the Inquiries Act would allow the Secretary of State for Defence – the minister with responsibility for the armed forces, whose conduct will be the subject of the inquiry – significant and wide-ranging powers to impose restrictions on the inquiry if he thinks it is necessary “in the public interest” to do so.

These include the power to set the terms of reference for the inquiry, and to change them during the inquiry; to appoint the chair of the inquiry and, in consultation with the chair, to appoint all the members of the inquiry panel; to bring the inquiry to an end at any point; to impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry hearings, and public disclosure of the evidence considered in the inquiry; and to withhold any material from the final published report of the inquiry.

Amnesty International is worried that any inquiry held under this legislation into an allegation of serious human rights violations may not be independent enough from the government to meet the standards required by international human rights law.

Parliamentarians meet US authorities over illegal detentions

Wed, 14 May 2008 09:49:40 +0100

International parliamentarians are meeting with US government officials from 14-16 May 2008 to discuss Amnesty International's framework to end illegal US detentions.

Sir Menzies Campbell, Member of the UK Parliament, and Christophe Strasser, Member of the German Bundestag, will represent the 1,236 parliamentarians from 30 countries that have already joined the call to US authorities to end illegal detention at Guantánamo and elsewhere, in accordance with Amnesty International's framework.

Sir Menzies Campbell and Christophe Strasser will meet with officials from the US Department of State, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Office of Senator McCain and the US Navy, among others.

Replica Guantánamo cell touring the US

Since 8 May, a replica of a maximum security cell at Guantánamo has been touring the US. The tour, organized by Amnesty International, is a way to enable people to get a glimpse of the harsh realities of illegal detention and prolonged isolation.

Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, ex-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a representative of the Global Elders, visited the cell in Miami on 10 May and spoke to Amnesty International activists who had gathered for a concert and rally.

UK deportation policy questioned by court

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:52:36 +0100

The UK government's policy of "deportation with assurances" was called into question on Wednesday by decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in two key cases. The cases are that of Abu Qatada, a Jordanian national, and that of two Libyan nationals, referred to for the purposes of legal proceedings in the UK as "DD" and "AS".

The UK has been seeking for some years to deport a number of individuals whom it alleges pose a threat to national security. It has acknowledged that these individuals could not ordinarily be deported, because of the real risk of grave human rights violations that they would face in the countries to which they are to be returned.

The UK government has therefore sought, in each of these cases, so-called ‘diplomatic assurances’ from the countries to which these individuals are to be returned that the individual will be treated in accordance with international human rights standards. These promises are unenforceable in any court of law.

Amnesty International has long argued that the UK government's policy of "deportation with assurances" undermines the absolute prohibition of torture. In particular, the policy is not compatible with the obligation, under international law, not to send individuals to countries where they face a real risk of grave human rights violations, including torture or other ill-treatment.

In both of today's cases, although on different grounds, the Court of Appeal ruled that the UK could not lawfully proceed with the deportations.

In the cases of "DD" and "AS", the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the court of first instance in these cases, that the assurances obtained from Libya by the UK in the form of a "Memorandum of Understanding" were not sufficient to protect them from a real risk of torture or other ill-treatment if they were to be returned to Libya and that they could not, therefore, be deported.

The Court of Appeal ruled, in Abu Qatada’s case, that the SIAC was entitled to find that so-called diplomatic assurances can sometimes be relied on to protect people against a real risk of very serious violations of their human rights, including the risk of being tortured and the risk of being subjected to a flagrantly unfair trial.

Amnesty International has voiced concern about this part of the decision. The organization argues that the unfair procedures the SIAC follows, which include the use of secret material in secret sessions of the court, makes it extremely hard to mount an effective challenge in the SIAC to the use of these assurances.

"If the Court of Appeal is unwilling to question the SIAC’s findings on the reliability of these assurances, there is real doubt over whether there is any genuine route open to the individuals who face deportation on the strength of such assurances to challenge their use," the organization said.

The Court of Appeal recognized, however, that the trial that Abu Qatada would face on his return to Jordan would amount to a flagrant violation of the right to a fair trial, and that the assurances given in his case offered no protection against that. The trial would be flagrantly unfair because it would very probably allow evidence that had been obtained by torture to be used against him. It therefore ruled that his deportation could not go ahead.

In the light of today’s decisions, Amnesty International has called on the UK government to abandon its dangerous and discredited policy of relying on unenforceable promises to get around its obligations not to send people to countries where they will face a real risk of grave human rights violations.

UN examines human rights in member countries

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:59:20 +0100

All UN member states are facing a rigorous examination of their human rights records. The inaugural session of the UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) working group began on Monday.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council and, over the next four years, it will regularly review the human rights obligations and commitments of all 192 Member States. Governments themselves will carry out this regular and systematic scrutiny.

The new process will address one of the main criticisms of the Council’s predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, which was accused of considering only a small number of countries, and of often avoiding pressing situations for political reasons.

The UPR Working Group will, until 18 April, examine the human rights records of 16 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, India, Indonesia, Morocco, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Tunisia and the UK.

This first session will be followed by two further sessions in 2008, so that 48 countries, selected by drawing lots, will have been scrutinized during the year.

An important feature of the new process is that governments of the countries under examination are expected to carry out a broad consultation among civil society. Amnesty International has lobbied energetically to ensure that all relevant voices are heard.

The organisation has submitted information on 14 of the 16 countries above and its members and supporters are working with civil society within each country to raise awareness of the new process.

Amnesty International said, in a statement issued on Monday, that this first session of the UPR Working Group will be key in setting the standard for future reviews, in terms of process as well as substance.

"Both reviewed and reviewing countries have an important role to play. Amnesty International looks to all member states to step up and help launch the UPR as an effective human rights mechanism," said Martin Macpherson, Director of the organization's International Law and Organisations Programme.

UK: Gagging potential witnesses will not serve justice

Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:10:26 +0000

Following the injunction granted on 28 February 2008 by the High Court of England and Wales to prevent Ben Griffin, a former member of the UK Special Forces (UKSF) Special Air Services (SAS), from making any further disclosures relating to the work of the SAS, Amnesty International's Senior Adviser, Anne FitzGerald, said:

“Rather than seeking to silence people who might have credible evidence of alleged human rights violations, which may include war crimes, the UK authorities should be seeking to investigate those allegations.”

“Amnesty International repeatedly makes calls for the UK to ensure that full and independent investigations are carried out wherever there are credible allegations that agents of the UK, including members of the armed forces, may have been responsible for grave violations of human rights law or for war crimes. Those calls all too often go unheeded: only last week Amnesty International repeated its call for such an investigation into the UK's alleged involvement in the US-led programme of renditions and secret detention, following official confirmation, after years of denial, that rendition flights did indeed touch down in the UK territory of Diego Garcia.”

“There can be no accountability without transparency: people - including former soldiers - who have information that may constitute evidence of war crimes or of grave human rights violations must be reassured that they can safely make that information public, without fear of punitive legal action against them. If the government of the UK succeeds in gagging Ben Griffin and burying any significant information he may possess, it risks preventing others from coming forward who may have evidence of serious violations.”

European Court reaffirms ban on torture

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:15:37 +0000

The European Court of Human Rights has re-affirmed the absolute prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the court's ruling in the case of Saadi v Italy on Thursday, it found "substantial grounds had been shown for believing that there is a real risk" that Nassim Saadi would be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment if he were deported, relying heavily on reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The Italian authorities sought to deport Mr Saadi to Tunisia under the "Pisanu Law" that was originally adopted in 2005 as "an urgent measure to combat terrorism". The Italian authorities argued that he posed a security risk to Italy.

The Court deemed the reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to be credible, consistent and corroborated by numerous other sources. Amnesty International's research indicates that torture and other ill-treatment by the security forces in Tunisia are widespread.

The practices reported, including against people charged with terrorism-related offences, include hanging from the ceiling, threats of rape, administration of electric shocks, immersion of the head in water, beatings and cigarette burns. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment in police custody are not investigated by the relevant Tunisian authorities.

"Confessions" extracted under torture may be used as the principal evidence in trials that result in long prison sentences or the death penalty. Consequently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that sending Nassim Saadi back to Tunisia would violate the Italian government’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

"This judgment should serve as a reminder to all states: not only they are not allowed to commit torture themselves, but they are forbidden from sending anyone to countries where they would be at risk of torture or other ill-treatment," said Ian Seiderman, Amnesty International’s Senior Legal Adviser.

The case took on additional significance when the United Kingdom intervened in an attempt to persuade the European Court to change its long-established case-law in a way that would have significantly weakened the absolute prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment. The Court rejected as "misconceived" the arguments advanced by the UK, with which the Italian government had agreed.

While the Court acknowledged the immense difficulty states face in protecting their communities from terrorist violence, it affirmed that the danger of terrorism "must not however call into question the absolute nature of [the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment]."