Memorandum submitted by the Medical Foundation
for the Care of Victims of Torture
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims
of Torture is a human rights organisation that works exclusively
with survivors of torture and organised violence, both adults
and children. It has received more than 38,000 referrals since
it began in 1985. The Foundation accepts some 3,000 new patients
annually for its services, whether for treatment and therapy or
documenting evidence of torture. The Foundation is recognised
by the Home Office on its website as a "bona fide" organisation
for the purpose of documenting torture in the context of asylum
claims, and its doctors document evidence of torture in approximately
1,000 cases a year. New clients come to the Medical Foundation
from about 90 countries and all regions of the world each year.
Long-term clients include surviving World War Two prisoners of
war and British citizens tortured abroad.
The Medical Foundation welcomes the opportunity
to comment on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Human Rights
Annual Report 2003, which overall shows an impressive range of
activities and projects as well as a willingness to speak frankly
about violations of human rights in particular countries.
This country-related information is at the core
of the report. While leaving other organisations with more competence
in monitoring human rights abuses to comment on the accuracy of
sections on each country, we note that the amount of coverage
given to individual country situations seems about right. Since
the appearance of the first FCO Human Rights Annual Review in
1998, the amount of country-related information has significantly
increased. Although such information appears in greater depth
elsewhere (eg, in US State Department, Amnesty International and
Human Rights Watch reports), it is vitally important to retain
this aspect of the FCO report.
Most human rights violations occur under state
responsibility, so any report dealing with such violations must
address them on a state-by-state basis. The statements about countries
in the Annual Review 2003 are generally clear and unequivocal,
eg, about Cameroon at page 121, or any of the countries mentioned
in Chapter 1. This clarity must remain if the report is to retain
credibility. Just as "The UK will continue to make the case
for country-specific action at CHR [UN Commission for Human Rights,
page 111]", we would argue that it is vital to have considerable
country information in the Annual Report. Other governments could
take the absence of such information as an assent to their abusive
practices. We find the index extremely useful to locate comments
on particular country situations throughout the book.
Country reporting within the Human Rights Annual
Report serves an additional purpose: it gives human rights a high
profile in HM Government's dialogue with other governments and
inter-governmental organisations, and it raises the commitment
to human rights development as a professional goal within the
FCO itself. If posts and staff have to report on human rights,
they must inevitably have to collect the information about abuses
and engage in programmes and projects to counteract those abuses.
Several items particular to this year's Annual
Report are noteworthy. First, the tribute to the late Siergio
Vieira de Mello is very well received in the community of human
rights workers and defenders here and abroad. Second, the section
on speeches at the back of the report is very good to have, and
we note especially the printing of the forthright speech by Ambassador
Craig Murray about human rights abuses, including death under
torture, in Uzbekistan.
There is one significant omission. The first
paragraph of the Foreign Secretary's Foreword says: "A concern
for the victims of human rights abuses . . . inspired our military
interventions in Kosovo in 1999 and in Sierra Leone in the following
year." A major theme of the Annual Report is the relations
between human rights violations and military intervention, including
Iraq, where human rights violations were a secondary justification
for military intervention. The Medical Foundation did not take
a position on any of the military interventions cited. However,
any future FCO report on human rights should deal with the central
and controversial issue of justifying military intervention by
reference to widespread or systematic human rights abuses. Human
rights violations have been invoked as a justification for war,
but the argument has not been made, at least not in this report.
On a topic so serious, having so many consequences for life and
death as well as for the future of international law, it is insufficient
simply to assert; one must make a more sustained argument.
The Human Rights Annual Report should be more
widely distributed and used by senior diplomats and other FCO
staff abroad. The accompanying form letter sent to the Medical
Foundation, dated 19 September 2003, was actually the one intended
for posts abroad, which says that two copies have been allocated
to each post. This seems paltry, given the significance of the
topic and the quality of the report. Posts should have enough
copies to give to the foreign ministry, parliamentarians, senior
judges and police officers, local non-governmental organisations,
journalists, etc.
The FCO itself has canvassed views about the
importance of having the Annual Report in electronic format alone.
We do not ascribe to this proposal. Printed copies are important
to its purpose and use. Receiving a printed copy from the British
Embassy or High Commission would put a particular government on
notice that HM Government is concerned about particular issues
in their country but that the attention paid to them is within
a much broader context of many concerns and many programmes globally.
It could be argued that printing the report
is relatively expensive, but in reality the largest costs are
staff costs, which are incurred regardless. We believe that there
are positive reasons to retain the printed format. First, we ourselves
live in a book culture. That is, even if radio, TV and the Web
are the main sources of information for the overwhelming majority
of citizens in Britain, really serious information that is meant
to be retained and studied is conveyed in book form. In the many
countries and societies to whom this report is directly relevant,
the book is an indication of serious content and intent. Muslims,
Jews and Christians are called "Peoples of the Book"
with good reason. The printed word is still a tool to conjure
with.
Second, a printed book is more easily skimmed
and searched, if properly indexed, than a large report divided
into many .pdf files online. There are of course advantages to
a CD containing a single file that can be searched, but few human
rights activists in poorer countries have access to the equipment
to run it.
Third, computer access is limited in many countries.
Even where there is access, downloading may be very slow indeed,
and there could be security implications for anyone tapping into
the FCO's website, eg, in China.
The Medical Foundation appreciates the invitation
to comment on this important report, which we believe makes an
important contribution to the promotion of human rights abroad.
Sherman Carroll, MBE
Director of Public Affairs
Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of
Torture
5 February 2004
| 
