Memorandum submitted by Amnesty International
UK
INTRODUCTION
1. This submission is made by the UK section
of Amnesty International. Amnesty International is a world-wide
membership movement. Our vision is of a world in which every person
enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. We promote all human rights and undertake research
and action focused on preventing grave abuses of the rights to
physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression
and freedom from discrimination.
2. The coverage of countries and themes
in this submission cannot include all of Amnesty International's
concerns, observations and recommendations. As in previous years,
we will seek to provide supplementary information at the request
of the Committee to assist it with its inquiry.
3. Amnesty International welcomes the publication
of the FCO's Human Rights Annual Report 2003 (the report). It
provides an invaluable insight into the department's policies
and priorities. It also details a range of important work that
would not be revealed in the absence of a comprehensive report.
This is essential to developing an informed and objective view
of UK human rights policy.
4. Although we recognise much of the good
work undertaken, we do not believe that during 2003, human rights
considerations were at the forefront of UK foreign policy. The
new FCO strategy, changes to the funding regime for human rights
projects and significant aspects of UK bilateral and multilateral
relations all give rise to this concern.
5. The FCO's human rights report 2003 does
not claim a perfect human rights record for the UK. Instead it
argues (p. 17) that "legitimate concerns about human rights
close to home and in like-minded countries should not blind anyone
working in the field of human rights to—or disproportionately
divert their effort from—the much more serious actions of
the most repressive regimes around the world".
6. However, Amnesty International agrees
with the Committee's report in 2003 that "it is vital that
the United Kingdom sets the highest standards of respect for human
rights in all areas of public life, it its work in promoting such
rights overseas is to reach its potential".[27]
Human rights violations in the UK and "like-minded countries"
seriously undermine the Government's ability to promote and protect
human rights abroad. The detention without trial of foreign nationals
at home must surely inhibit FCO persuasiveness when discussing
with other governments violations arising from detention without
trial under their "counter-terrorism" legislation. Failure
to strongly criticise the situation in Guantanamo Bay, which in
any sense constitutes an affront to human rights, makes the UK
appear selective in its concerns. Furthermore, the UK is an influential
player on the world stage. Actions at home have a resonance beyond
these shores. In short, we do not believe that the UK government's
own record on adhering to international human rights standards
is so easily separable from its ability to inspire others to respect
human rights.
THE PURPOSE
OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT
7. Amnesty International believes that the
FCO has produced a comprehensive report that achieves its objective
(inside front cover) "to provide those outside the Government
with a tool to hold the Government to account for its commitments".
The Government has recently taken soundings on the content and
format of the report with the stated aims of making the report
better and more responsive to the needs of its target audiences.
CONTENT OF
THE REPORT
8. We value the whole process surrounding
the preparation and examination of the annual report. In particular,
we value the scrutiny of the Committee. In this respect we recall
conclusion 37 of the Committee's first report of the 2000-2001
session:
"Mr Hain has stated his appreciation of
the feedback we provide, while Amnesty International UK has commented
on our annual appraisal of human rights policy that `such scrutiny
is vital'. It is scrutiny we intend to maintain".[28]
We hope that the Committee's intention remains
the same and will remain irrespective of any changes to the report.
9. In the past we have not formed a view
in the ongoing debate between the Committee and the Government
on the balance between country and thematic coverage in the report.
The publication of the Iraq human rights dossier gave us pause
for thought. We recognise the merits of in-depth coverage, provided
it is on a consistent basis across a range of countries. If a
forward schedule of countries could be identified by the FCO,
in consultation with the Committee and NGOs, we believe that scrutiny
of UK foreign policy might be strengthened. Countries such as
Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, DRC and Russia, for
example, might be suggestions for any forward schedule.
10. Whatever format (or formats) future
annual reports may adopt, we believe that it could be strengthened
by the identification of targets and benchmarks.
Amnesty International advocates that future
reports should set out intended actions on human rights in the
year (or years) ahead and the benchmarks that the Government would
like other countries to achieve.
11. For many readers the most valuable and
pertinent section of the report is the coverage given to "challenges
and progress" in individual countries. We believe that a
forward-looking report should be a tool to support the FCO's human
rights work in individual countries. This could be achieved through
each post drawing up their own human rights objectives and strategies
to achieve them. Progress on key elements of these objectives
and strategies could then be disclosed through subsequent annual
reports. In such an arrangement, we would also expect to see a
place for the Committee and civil society to be able to contribute
to the identification of priority areas. Crucial to the effectiveness
of this would be requirement on all posts to draw up human rights
strategies and increase transparency in conducting analysis and
setting targets.
12. We consider that a forward looking annual
report could become part of a vibrant process "to hold the
Government to account for its commitments". In this connection,
we set out below some of the objectives for the report that we
would recommend for adoption in the year ahead:
— The FCO should make arrangements
for producing an annual report that not only reviews progress
for the past year but also sets the priority areas and objectives
for future human rights work.
— The FCO should make arrangements
to step up the involvement of individual posts in the setting
and achievement of human rights objectives and strategies in individual
countries working under the umbrella of the annual report process.
— The FCO should include opportunities
to consult with civil society etc as part of these arrangements.
— The FCO should clarify in the next
report that a human rights dimension applies to all facets of
its new strategy setting out priorities for the next 10 years.
FCO STRATEGY
13. Amnesty International welcomes the commitment
made in the FCO's strategy (priority 6 in Chapter 4) to "sustainable
development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human
rights"[29]
We are unclear, however, whether this signifies an intent to adopt
a narrow view of human rights through the prism of sustainable
development. We would maintain that the FCO's strategy should
recognise human rights as a theme that both stands alone and cuts
across the other priority areas it has identified (terrorism,
immigration, developing the international system etc).
HUMAN RIGHTS
PROJECT FUNDING
(ANNEX 2 OF
THE FCO REPORT)
14. One of the factors reinforcing Amnesty
International's concerns about the place of human rights within
UK foreign policy is uncertainty over the future level of funding
for human rights projects.
15. The Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF)
was created in 1998 by Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary, "as
part of the FCO's drive to mainstream human rights in foreign
policy" (p. 256). Since its inception, according to Annex
2 of the report, £30million has been allocated to this purpose
of helping to mainstream human rights. HRPF totalled £7.4
million in financial year 2002-03 and the budget is at a similar
level for 2003-04. However, it will cease to exist at the current
financial year. Instead, a new "Human Rights and Good Governance"
programme will be included as a priority area under the Global
Opportunities Fund (GOF).
16. Amnesty International is not certain
of the total earmarked for the Human Rights and Good Governance
priority within GOF but we expect the figure to be around £2
million. This is clearly substantially less than HRPF's budget.
17. The FCO is likely to claim that human
rights projects could also be funded under several of the other
GOF priority areas, which are:
— Engaging with the Islamic World
— Climate change and energy
— Strengthening our relations with
emerging markets
18. Amnesty International is sceptical.
An analysis of the project funding described in Annex 2 indicates
that substantially less funding will be available for human rights
project funding in certain parts of the world. Even if one makes
a probably unrealistic assumption that all expenditure for HRPF
projects in Islamic and European countries could be subsumed within
those other priority areas, this would leave £2.75 million—£3
million worth of human rights project funding chasing GOF's human
rights priority budget. This is a budget that will also have to
finance production of the FCO Human Rights Annual Report and voluntary
contributions to relevant IGOs. A significant drop in funding
for human rights projects seems likely.
19. Our calculations are "rough and
ready". However, we believe they merit concern from the Committee.
We hope that the Committee might request the Government to:
— provide information on how much money
will be allocated to each of GOF's priority areas; and
— provide a detailed breakdown for
HRPD expenditure by country, FCO command and human rights theme
during FY 2002-03 and FY 2003-04 (as soon as these figures become
available); and
— provide a similar breakdown for GOF
human rights related project expenditure for 2004-05, with a comprehensive
list of projects included.
20. Amnesty International is concerned about
the future level of funding for human rights projects. We believe
that the FCO should guarantee that expenditure on recognisably
human rights related projects funded by GOF should be at least
£7.4 million for each of the next two financial years.
THE "WAR
AGAINST TERRORISM"
(SECTION 1.1)
21. Section 1.1 of the report describes
what the FCO calls the "fight against international terrorism".
Amnesty International considers that it is a fight that has been
responsible for a global backlash against human rights. Governments
across the world have taken exceptional measures, ostensibly to
counter terrorism, which have resulted in widespread human rights
violations.
22. Amnesty International recognises that
states have a duty under international law to provide security
and protect their populations from violent criminal acts. However,
such measures should be implemented within a framework of protection
and promotion for all human rights. We are gravely concerned that
there are areas where the UK government has not properly observed
this requirement in its dealings abroad and at home (see, for
example, sections on domestic "anti terrorism" legislation
and Russia).
23. Amnesty International wrote to the UN
Security Council in January 2002 urging it to take concrete steps
to ensure that governments do not violate the obligations and
standards of international human rights law in the process, and
to appoint a human rights expert to the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
The Security Council declined to do so. For its part, the Committee
claimed that protection of human rights was a matter for other
UN bodies. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to
press the UN Security Council and the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee
to revise their position and adopt measures without delay to ensure
that counter-terrorism measures adopted by UN Member States do
not violate their human rights obligations.
DETAINEES AT
GUANTANAMO BAY
(P19)
24. A framework of protection for all human
rights does not exist for the more than 660 people, including
three UK residents and nine UK nationals, who continue to be held
in the "legal black hole" of Guantanamo Bay. Some of
those detained have been held for two years—without charge,
without access to their families and overwhelmingly without access
to legal counsel. Amnesty International continues to be gravely
concerned that the totality of the regime at Guantanamo Bay amounts
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
25. The US government has indicated that
specially established military commissions could be used to try
some of the detainees. We are deeply concerned over the prospect
of such trials that we believe would not meet international fair
trial standards and would contravene US obligations under international
law. Of particular concern is the fact that these commissions
could impose the death penalty, while denying the right of appeal
against conviction or sentence to a higher court—a specific
requirement under international law in capital proceedings.
26. During 2003, the nine UK nationals,
including Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi,
who continue to be held indefinitely without charge or trial or
access to courts, lawyers or relatives in US custody at Guantanamo
Bay, were "visited" and interviewed on a number of occasions
by UK officials, including members of the security services. Amnesty
International remains deeply concerned that UK authorities were
taking advantage of the legal limbo and the coercive detention
conditions in which these nationals were held at Guantanamo Bay
to interrogate them and extract information to use in proceedings
under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Bisher
al-Rawi, an Iraqi national legally resident in the UK, and Jamil
Al-Banna, a Jordanian national with refugee status in the UK,
remain in US custody at Guantanamo Bay. We are concerned about
the role that the UK government may have played in their unlawful
rendering to US custody, and about its refusal to make representations
on their behalf to the US authorities.
27. The FCO report (page 19) details the
UK's representations made to the US government. The situation
remains unclear and characterised by press reports and media speculation,
with the families of the detained sometimes left in the dark.
The FCO should ensure that the families are kept informed and
quickly told of new developments, including comments which might
give rise to speculation rather than allowing families to learn
of developments or comments through the media.
28. Amnesty International maintains that
access to legal representation, the suspension of interrogations
until this is provided and a fair trial process should be the
bottom line for all the detainees held by US authorities. Anyone
not brought to trial in a prompt manner and in accordance with
international fair trial standards should be released.
29. We seek:
— that all detainees are either charged
with recognisably criminal offences or released;
— the outlawing of any treatment which
violates international law and standards such as stress and duress
tactics;
— the provision of legal counsel to
all detainees and suspension of interrogations unless legal counsel
is provided;
— granting Amnesty International access
to detainees and officials at Guantanamo Bay as well as other
US-run military detention sites;
— that the Military Order of 13 November
2001 be revoked and all plans for trials by military commissions
be dropped. If they do go ahead, independent international observers
should be enabled to attend.
ANTI-TERRORISM
CRIME AND
SECURITY ACT
2001 (P18-19)
30. Amnesty International believes that
Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA)
is inconsistent with international human rights law and standards,
including treaty provisions by which the UK is bound. The fact
that the UK government has been one of the first to adopt such
measures colours and detracts from its work to promote and protect
human rights in the international arena.
31. The Home Secretary has certified 17
people as "suspected international terrorists" and currently
14 people—all non-UK nationals—are detained under
the ATCSA in the UK. They have been detained in high security
establishments, under severely restricted regimes. We believe
that these people have been effectively "charged" with
a criminal offence, and have been "convicted" and sentenced
to an indefinite term of imprisonment without a trial. In light
of the fact that these powers can only be applied to non-UK nationals,
Amnesty International considers that Part 4 of the ATCSA violates
the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in international law.
32. In May, June and July 2003, the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) heard appeals brought by
10 individuals against their certification by the Home Secretary
as "suspected international terrorists and national security
risks", and against their consequent detention under the
ATCSA. Judgements handed down in October 2003 confirmed the certification
of each individual concerned as a "suspected international
terrorist" and dismissed his appeal.
33. We consider that the proceedings before
the SIAC fell short of international fair trial standards, including
the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to a defence
and the right to counsel. Anmesty International is also alarmed
at the SIAC's reliance on secret evidence, and at the SIAC's willingness
to rely on evidence alleged to have been adduced as a result of
torture, in reaching its judgements.
34. We continue to call on the UK government
to release all persons detained under the ATCSA unless they are
charged with a recognisably criminal offence and tried by an independent
and impartial court in proceedings which meet international standards
of fairness.
IRAQ (P19-25)
35. On 20 March 2003, the USA and the UK
took military action against Iraq. Amnesty International was deeply
concerned about the number of civilian deaths, and has condemned
the use of cluster bombs by US and UK forces. Attacks took place
in the vicinity of civilian targets with predictable consequences.
The indiscriminate killing of civilians is a grave violation of
international humanitarian law. Amnesty International calls for
an immediate moratorium on the use of cluster bombs and other
inherently indiscriminate weapons. Civilians were also placed
at greater risk of being killed or injured due to tactics used
by the Iraqi military that violate humanitarian law, such as perfidious
attacks. This does not, however, excuse indiscriminate or disproportionate
attacks causing civilian casualties by US or UK forces.
36. The immediate post-conflict period in
Iraq was characterised by a climate of lawlessness, which has
severely hindered the delivery of humanitarian aid and impeded
the reconstruction of Iraq. The situation in Iraq remains extremely
volatile today.
37. Amnesty International condemns in the
strongest terms suicide bomb attacks and attacks by Iraqi armed
groups targeted at Iraqi civilians and international humanitarian
agencies. Among the most deplorable of these attacks have been
an attack against the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) in Baghdad in October 2003, which killed at least 12 people,
and an attack on the UN office in Baghdad in August 2003, which
claimed the life of Sergio Vieira de Mello, UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, and at least 16 other people.
38. We have also documented numerous cases
of alleged unlawful killings by coalition forces were documented
by Amnesty International. There continue to be many reports of
coalition forces engaging in house searches and damaging or destroying
property without justification. This includes reports of houses
being demolished apparently as a form of collective punishment
or deterrence in breach of Articles 33 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.
39. Amnesty International firmly believes
that coalition forces need to ensure that all use of force, including
the use of firearms, observes principles of necessity and proportionality.
Where it is not possible to entrust law-enforcement responsibilities
to the Iraqi police, coalition forces need to apply policing methods
that are in line with human rights standards of law enforcement.
40. Amnesty International welcomes the arrest
of Saddam Hussein, who is accused of gross human rights violations,
including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Like any other
criminal suspect, he is entitled to all relevant safeguards under
international law, including the right not to be subjected to
torture or ill-treatment and to receive a fair trial. Amnesty
International urges the Coalition Provisional Authority to ensure
that whatever court will try Saddam Hussein and others will be
fair and be seen to be fair, and will not impose the death penalty.
The Coalition Provisional Authority should fully explore the option
of calling on external expertise to inform the makeup of such
a court, and assist in the trial process.
41. There is currently a two-tier penal
system in Iraq, in which suspects arrested and detained by coalition
forces have fewer rights than those arrested and detained by Iraqi
officials. There should be a unified penal system without delay,
whereby all criminal suspects are treated equally and are afforded
all safeguards provided by international law regardless of which
authority is responsible for holding them.
42. Many detainees interviewed last year
by Amnesty International delegates in Iraq have reported that
they suffered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment immediately
after their arrest. Every step should be taken to ensure the absolute
prohibition of torture and any other form of ill-treatment by
the coalition forces and Iraqi law enforcement officials. Coalition
forces should also ensure that the conditions of detention for
all detainees fully comply with international law standards, and
that the whereabouts of anyone taken into custody are made known.
43. All allegations of violations of rights
by the Coalition Provisional Authority and coalition forces should
be investigated by a competent, impartial and independent body,
and those responsible brought to justice. Victims of abuse and
their relatives must be made aware of and have access to redress
mechanisms and be entitled to reparations. Openness and transparency,
including the publication of investigation findings, are also
fundamental in order to inspire the confidence of those who have
been victims of abuses.
AFGHANISTAN (P25-28)
44. Afghanistan remains on the critical
list with its recovery being hampered by the failure of the international
community to provide long term political and financial support.
Beyond the stabilising presence of the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul much of the rest of the country
is in turmoil. Amnesty International has called for the expansion
of the peacekeeping presence outside Kabul to create an environment
in which the rule of law can be established throughout Afghanistan.
45. Ending impunity is crucial to ensuring
that Afghanistan builds a future based upon the rule of law. Atrocities
against civilians and combatants have not been subject to full
and impartial investigations and no one has yet been brought to
justice for these crimes. We call on the UK government to support
the establishment of an international and independent commission
of inquiry as an important step towards ensuring accountability
as recommended by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
and arbitrary executions.
46. The treatment of women remains a matter
of real concern. Afghanistan ratified CEDAW in 2003 and the UK
Government has offered help and advice on implementation matters.
Women and girls continue to face widespread domestic violence,
forced marriage and rape by armed groups. The criminal justice
system is still too weak to offer effective protection of women's
right to life and physical security, and itself subjects them
to discrimination and abuse.
The UK Government and international community
needs to provide the long-term money, training and skills necessary
to establish an effective justice system in Afghanistan which
will fully integrate the protection of women's rights with the
reform of law enforcement, legal and judicial system.
47. As provided for under the Bonn agreement
of 2001, the recent adoption of the new constitution and governing
institutions is intended to pave the way for democratic elections
scheduled for June 2004. The international community, including
the UK, need to stand by their promises to the Afghan people in
the crucial months ahead.
Saudi Arabia (p 45-47)
48. Last year, we had cause to comment on
the brevity of the section in the 2002 report on Saudi Arabia.
The present report represents a marked improvement and a more
realistic attempt at an appraisal of the human rights situation
in the country. We believe that this is, in no small part, a testament
to the observations and conclusions reached by the Committee in
2003. The FCO must maintain this level of attention and should
also set benchmarks and targets for improvements.
49. Amnesty International remains deeply
concerned that Saudi Arabia's position in the frontline of the
present "war against terrorism" is aggravating gross
and widespread violations of human rights within the country.
The lack of transparency in the justice system, the use of capital
and corporal punishment, torture with impunity, discrimination
against women and non-Muslims are areas of particular concern.
Basic rights of freedom of expression and assembly continue to
be denied with over 250 people arrested in October 2003 for participating
in demonstrations calling for political reform and the release
of political prisoners. Over 80 were detained for interrogation
and trial. Seven were sentenced to prison terms varying from one
to three months, to suffer at least 50 lashes and to sign declarations
undertaking not to demonstrate again. None of the seven is believed
to have had legal representation at their trial.
50. The trial process in Saudi Arabia fails
to meet the most basic notions of fairness and transparency in
falling well short of international human rights standards. Amnesty
International seeks radical reform of the criminal justice system
in Saudi Arabia to allow for more transparency in the administration
of justice. In the period covered by the FCO's report, the conviction
and sentencing of British and other nationals to death or long
prison terms (for alleged involvement in bomb attacks) made this
a real concern for the UK Government. The Government's efforts
to raise these concerns with the Saudi authorities culminated
in the release, in August 2003, of the British nationals involved.
However, the system has not changed and there are many other detainees
(Saudi and foreign nationals) still denied a fair trial. The UK
Government should continue to use every opportunity to press home
the argument for reform of the criminal justice system in Saudi
Arabia.
Democratic Republic of Congo (p 52-53)
51. Amnesty International agrees with the
conclusion in the report that stability in the Great Lakes continues
to be threatened by conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC). Since the start of the conflict in 1998, at least three
million people have been killed. The main focus of the conflict
is in Eastern DRC where over 75% of the killings have taken place
and from where 90% of the country's internally displaced population
have fled.
52. The FCO report states that "agreements
on a transition to representative government have been concluded,
and Rwandese and Ugandan armed forces have left DRC." The
governments of Rwanda and Uganda officially withdrew their forces
in late 2002, and have publicly committed themselves to supporting
the new DRC transitional government. However, Amnesty International
continues to receive credible reports that both countries are
still deeply implicated in the turmoil in Eastern DRC. For example
in October 2003, the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) reported that
it had been blocked in its effort over the previous few weeks
to check on reports of Rwandan troops being stationed inside the
DRC.
53. The report outlines the financial and
technical assistance the UK Government has given to MONUC and
the "tough messages" on human rights the government
delivers to all Congolese parties, such as the pressing for a
moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Amnesty International
welcomes these moves but also expects the Government to extend
this tough talking to the Rwandese and Ugandan governments.
54. At the heart of this conflict is a struggle
for the DRC's natural resources. It is surprising that the FCO
report makes no mention of this or of the report produced by the
UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources
and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC in 2002. This report explored
the impact of resource exploitation and how that contributed to
the continuing conflict. It also identified companies that may
have broken the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's
(OECD's) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
55. The UN Panel published their final report
in October 2003 documenting the link between economic exploitation,
arms trafficking, and armed conflict in the DRC. The report concluded
that revenue from the DRC's natural resources in addition to money
raised at customs border posts, had enabled political and military
actors to fund their military activities, including the purchase
of arms. It again implicated companies in the illegal trading
of natural resources and referred to national governments—including
the UK—cases it believed needed to be investigated further.
The UK Government appears reluctant to investigate the UK companies
that may be in breach of the OECD's Guidelines—a position
that Amnesty International finds indefensible. The UK Government
must investigate fully and impartially all the companies referred
to it by the UN Panel of Experts and make its findings public.
Without such a commitment, all efforts to find an "inclusive
solution to the armed conflict" in the DRC could prove futile.
56. In addition the UK Government should
push for the establishment of an effective body to monitor and
implement the arms embargo on the DRC, in place since last July.
The remit of this body must include the authority to examine the
link between resource exploitation, arms acquisition and the continuing
insecurity in eastern DRC. The UK Government should call for such
a remit and gives its assurance that it will be pushing for one
during its ongoing discussions within the UN Security Council.
Colombia (p 57-60)
57. Despite making a clear pledge to implement
recommendations of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on
impunity and collusion at the London conference on 10 July 2003,
President Uribe continues to pursue policies that are contrary
to these recommendations including:
— negotiations with paramilitaries
and possible amnesties for paramilitary, guerrilla and members
of the security forces responsible for human rights abuses;
— the combination of a proposed bill
which might grant civilians access to assault weaponry and the
establishment of a network of civilian informers and an army of
peasant soldiers; and
— proposals to grant judicial police
powers to the armed forces enabling the military to initiate arbitrary
criminal investigations, carry out raids on homes and detain individuals
on mere suspicion of wrongdoing.
58. As indicated in the FCO report, the
UK Government regularly seeks progress on the pledges made by
the Colombian government. Working alongside other EU partners,
it will evaluate the progress made in Colombia to the end of last
year. Given our concerns about President Uribe's policies, Amnesty
International believes it important to know the criteria and measures
that the UK Government is using to evaluate progress made by the
Colombian Government.
Russia (Chechnya)
59. During 2003, Amnesty International undertook
a global campaign on the human rights situation in Russia. During
this campaign, we sought to highlight a number of concerns. These
included continued torture and ill-treatment throughout the Federation,
poor detention conditions, aspects of Russia's "antiterrorism"
laws and discrimination on the grounds of race and religion. Amnesty
International is pleased with the level of co-operation with officials
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during this period.
60. Many of the concerns that we have identified
are also referred to in the report. For example we are pleased
that whilst the FCO notes positive developments since Russia began
to implement its new Criminal Procedure Code, the report also
states that "it is crucial that the code is effectively implemented
and we will continue to monitor its progress" (p 179). This
is vital. We are also pleased with the observation that "torture
continues because of a climate of impunity" (p 173). This
alludes to the systemic nature of the problem in the Russian Federation.
We are aware that many of these issues are raised during the annual
UK-Russia human rights dialogue.
61. However, discussion of human rights
concerns in Russia is dominated by the situation in Chechnya.
The FCO has raised concerns during the dialogue sessions, it supported
an unsuccessful resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights
in 2003. These measures are welcome but they are not enough. When
President Putin visited the United Kingdom last year, Amnesty
International hoped and expected that the human rights situation
would be addressed by the Prime Minister. We are not convinced
that the Prime Minister did so. If correct, this would be astonishing.
The FCO acknowledges that human rights violations continue in
Chechnya and that they constitute "a significant obstacle
to a lasting political settlement". We would therefore expect
the head of the UK Government to address the situation with his
Russian counterpart.
62. We are concerned that the Prime Minister's
failure to speak out may be because of a willingness to accept
that Russia's activities are part of the "war against terrorism".
States do have a duty to provide for the security of their people.
However, this must be done within a framework of respect for human
rights. Turning a blind eye to any failure to do this is unacceptable
for the leader of the UK Government at such a sensitive time in
international affairs.
UN Commission on Human Rights (p 111-112)
63. Given that the 59th session of the UN
Commission on Human Rights (the Commission) took place during
the early stages of the war in Iraq, it is unsurprising that that
war and the impact of counter-terrorism measures on human rights
following the September 11 attacks repeatedly surfaced. Amnesty
International issued an open statement urging the Commission to
use the opportunity of a Special Sitting to address the impact
of war on the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq,
and the need to deploy human rights monitors. We were therefore
disappointed when the Commission voted against the proposal to
hold a Special Sitting to discuss the war in Iraq. The UK was
one of the 25 states to vote against this proposal a fact not
made explicit in the 2003 annual report. The FCO should establish
a public database and index of the UK's visiting record on important
UN resolutions, including an explanation of its voting decisions.
64. Amnesty International agrees with a
comment made by the FCO Minister Bill Rammell, at the opening
of the 59th session that the Commission is the prime UN intergovernmental
organ addressing human rights and if it does not work properly
this seriously undermines all the work that the UN does on human
rights. Amnesty International would further add that it is also
the responsibility of the member states to the Commission to ensure
that its credibility is maintained and that no state that seriously
violates human rights escapes scrutiny.
65. The FCO report states that: "currently
the most contentious issue at the CHR is how to address human
rights violations in individual countries." Amnesty International
would concur with this statement and add that it is becoming increasingly
difficult to pass resolutions on states that persistently commit
human rights abuses. Prior to the 59th session, Amnesty International
lobbied for action to be taken in regards to the human rights
situation in Nepal. However, the EU did not table a resolution
on Nepal even though the Nepalese's National Human Rights Commission,
the Nepal Bar Association and some 58 national NGOs supported
one. Amnesty International believes that the UK should have shown
leadership in this area and lobbied hard for Nepal's inclusion
on the EU list.
66. The operation of the Commission has
been characterised by block voting, where politics have become
of greater importance than the human rights under discussion.
This has to be addressed. Amnesty International has followed with
interest the review of working methods of the Commission. We have
been pleased by several developments such as the creation of interactive
dialogues between the special rapporteurs and national governments.
However further reforms are needed if the Commission is to be
effective and efficient. Amnesty International looks to countries
like the UK to show leadership and to play an important role in
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Commission.
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT (P164-166)
67. Amnesty International is delighted that
92 countries have already ratified the Statute and that Luis Moreno
Ocampo, the Court's First Prosecutor and his colleagues, are conducting
a preliminary examination of the crimes that have taken place
in the Democratic Republic of Congo as their first investigation.
In addition we welcome the recent announcement of the Prosecutor
that, in response to the referral from the Ugandan government,
he would take steps towards investigating and prosecuting war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the context of
the conflict in northern Uganda.
68. However, as acknowledged in the report,
there is still significant work to be done in building and strengthening
the ICC by states such as the UK. We remain deeply concerned both
by the sustained campaign of the US government to undermine the
effectiveness of the Court and the reluctance of other states
such as the UK to challenge the US's position openly.
69. The three paragraphs in the report that
deal with the US's objection to the Court, as well as its two-pronged
approach (ie bilateral impunity agreements and renewal of UN Security
Resolution 1422) to ensure that no US citizen will ever be brought
before the Court, are disappointing. The report states that "the
US pressed successfully for the passage of UN Security Council
Resolution 1422 which granted a 12 month exemption ... from ICC
investigations for UN peacekeepers from non-states parties"
and that this resolution was renewed as Security Council Resolution
1487 in June 2003. The report fails to mention that the method
used by the US to "press successfully" for Security
Resolution 1422 involved threats to withdraw all US support for
UN peacekeeping operations.
70. During the open debate in the Security
Council on the renewal of Resolution 1422, governments such as
France and Germany spoke out against the renewal of the Resolution
and then abstained when it was put to a vote. The UK however voted
in favour of the Resolution and did not openly criticise the US
position during the debate.
71. The FCO report makes no mention of the
fact that the UK voted in favour of both Resolution 1422 and its
renewal Resolution 1487. Amnesty International believes that these
resolutions are contrary to both the Rome Statute and the UN Charter
and therefore illegal under international law. The UK as a strong
supporter of the ICC should have opposed both of these Resolutions.
We are disappointed that the UK did not, at least, register its
opposition and abstain.
72. The US aims ideally to conclude bilateral
impunity agreements, which would prevent the hand-over of US citizens
to the ICC, with every country in the world. The report acknowledges
the USA's attempts to create a "global network" of such
agreements. To date at least 70 countries are reported to have
signed such agreements—30 of which are also states parties
to the Rome Statute. The US has threatened states with withdrawal
of military and other types of aid if they do not sign such bilateral
impunity agreements. The FCO reports that the US has started putting
its threats into action and concludes by stating that: "while
we obviously regret the withdrawal of military and other aid by
the US, this is essentially a bilateral matter for countries concerned."
Amnesty International believes that the UK government's position
should be stronger than one of "regret." Furthermore,
we believe that the US attempts to create bilateral agreements
cannot be separated from a wider campaign of opposition to the
ICC. It is not therefore "essentially a bilateral matter";
it is a multilateral issue which the UK should not ignore. As
a strong supporter of the ICC, the UK should have cause to condemn
unequivocally US attempts to threaten other states and to undermine
the international rule of law.
73. As the FCO report mentions, the EU has
Guiding Principles outlining the limited circumstances under which
states parties to the Rome Statute may conclude a bilateral agreement
with a non-state party. Amnesty International welcomes the EU's
commitment to the integrity of the Rome Statute and the recognition
that there must be no impunity for US nationals accused of genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes.
74. However, we remain concerned by the
fact that the EU position envisages the possibility of Member
States entering into bilateral agreements with the US subject
to certain conditions—a position which we believe is based
on flawed legal opinion. The FCO report espouses the same misguided
position. Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute does not permit states
to enter into new agreements designed to prevent the ICC from
exercising its jurisdiction over nationals of non-states parties
to the Statute when the alleged crimes was committed on the territory
of a state party. Article 98(2) was included in the Statute to
cover existing agreements between countries, specifically Status
of Forces Agreements (SOFAs). SOFAs are not designed to provide
blanket impunity as the US agreements do. Furthermore, states
signing or ratifying an international treaty are obliged to act
in a manner consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.
State parties or signatories to the Rome Statute which conclude
bilateral impunity agreements are flouting this principle.
75. Amnesty International welcomes the efforts
by the UK as mentioned in the FCO report to lobby other states
to ratify the Rome Statute and to provide training on the process
of ratification. However we remain concerned that the report fails
to mention the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the ICC
signed by the UK in 2002 but still not ratified. This agreement
will be essential to the effective and independent functioning
of the ICC.
76. In last year's report, the FCO stated
that "the ICC will transcend borders and embody global values.
We will be one of its most energetic supporters, taking responsibility
for making sure that it does its job without prejudice."
If this is to be the case, the UK government must take a strong
stand against US attempts to undermine the ICC and prove that
its commitment to human rights is not mere rhetoric.
EUROPEAN COURT
OF HUMAN
RIGHTS (P103-14)
77. Amnesty International acknowledges that
the dramatic increase in the number of individual applications
being lodged with the European Court of Human Rights (the Court)
has been detrimental to the Court's effectiveness. Reforms are
most definitely needed. We believe that measures to improve the
long-term effectiveness of the Court should aim to improve implementation
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention) in Member States
and to strengthen the right of individual application by ensuring
the speedier resolution of applications.
78. Amnesty International supported many
of the conclusions endorsed by the Committee of Ministers in May
2003, including their decision to empower committees of three
judges to rule together on both the admissibility and the merits
of cases that raise repetitive issues about which there is well-established
case law. We also welcomed their recommendation for governments
of Council of Europe Member States to "share information
with civil society."
79. However we remain concerned at the proposals
to amend Article 35 of the European Convention in order to introduce
additional admissibility criteria. The FCO report acknowledges
that "NGOs did not agree with recommendations to introduce
filter mechanisms that would reduce the number of cases given
full consideration by the Court" but does not explain the
NGOs' reasons. Amnesty International was one of 74 NGOs to argue
that proposals to change the current admissibility criteria could
restrict the right of an individual to have currently admissible
cases determined on their merits. Our view was shared by some
judges of the Court, representatives of the European National
Human Rights Institutions and members of the Court's Registry.
We believe that the right of individual application lies at the
heart of the European Convention system and must not be prejudiced,
restricted or weakened. Doing so would be seen as an erosion of
human rights protection by Member States, which would send an
adverse message about the need to uphold fundamental human rights
at a time when they are under great pressure around the world.
80. Amnesty International is unconvinced
of the necessity or effectiveness of the proposal to amend Article
35. The Registry of the Court has indicated that this proposal
will do little to reduce the Court's caseload. Instead, adding
additional admissibility criteria will make the admissibility
process significantly more time-consuming and complex—as
additional material would have to be examined—and hence
add to the Court's workload.
DEATH PENALTY
(P174-178)
81. Amnesty International welcomes the Government's
continued activism in opposition to the death penalty and its
prompt ratification of Protocol 13 of the European Convention
on Human Rights. We hope and expect this activism to continue.
82. Amnesty International is currently campaigning
on the case of Kenny Richey, a dual British/US citizen who has
been on death row in Ohio, for 17 years. We have described this
case as "one of the most compelling cases of innocence human
rights campaigners have ever seen". Despite the fact that
new evidence presented to the court in 1997 discredited the evidence
that Kenny Richey was previously convicted on, Kenny remains on
death row and could have a date for execution sometime this year.
The decision on Kenny Richey's final guaranteed appeal process
is imminent and a negative result will mean that procedures for
the allocation of a further execution date will begin. Kenny's
final option will be an application for clemency; this decision
is at the discretion of the Governor of Ohio.
83. Amnesty International is calling on
the UK Government to make immediate representations to the US
Government in an appeal to overturn Kenny Richey's death sentence,
and representations to the Governor of Ohio at the point of an
application for clemency for Kenny Richey, not in general terms
but in relation to Mr Richey's specific case. As with the cases
of all cases of British nationals on death row in any country,
we believe that representations should be substantive and deal
with the specifics of the case.
84. Amnesty International launched the "Stop
Child Executions" action in January 2004 and will focus on
the execution of child offenders in USA, Iran, Pakistan, the Philippines
and Sudan. We look forward to the co-operation of the UK government
in the effort to halt the execution of persons who are convicted
of crimes committed whilst under the age of 18.
ARMS CONTROL
TREATY (P127-131)
85. As noted in the FCO Human Rights report,
armed conflicts continue to endanger and disrupt the lives of
millions around the world—an estimated 500,000 people per
year are killed by armed violence, and millions more are maimed,
bereaved and displaced. This situation is exacerbated by the lack
of a legally binding international framework to stop the most
irresponsible arms transfers taking place.
86. In this context we fully support the
Government's view that the most effective way of regulating the
arms trade is through multilateral agreements. We welcome the
leading role the UK is playing at an EU level and within various
arms control fora such as the Wassennaar Arrangement, the OSCE,
and the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons
(SALW). We agree with the FCO statement that "[i]f we are
to control the supply of SALW, we must develop common international
standards on arms exports". However, there is a clear weakness
in agreements that are only politically binding and a risk that
pushing for consensus will only bring a lowest common denominator
result. The FCO states that it is committed to promoting the universal
implementation of international human rights and humanitarian
standards. We therefore urge the government to be more vocal in
its support for a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty
based on existing principles of international human rights and
humanitarian law.
87. The "war on terror" should
have focused political will on restraining arms sales, but instead
many governments, led by the USA, have relaxed controls on exports
to new-found allies regardless of their human rights records.
This puts us all at greater risk. In this context we are concerned
that the importance given to human rights in the UK's export licensing
policy is being displaced by the desire to arm perceived allies
in the "war on terror" and by other economic interests.
88. There is evidence that much of the weaponry
used in today's conflict zones or by armed criminal groups are
transferred by arms brokers and traffickers. Amnesty International
therefore welcomes the July 2002 Export Control Act and the controls
it introduces on UK-based arms brokers. However, we remain concerned
that the government's failure to honour its election manifesto
commitment to control arms brokers "wherever they are located"
leaves a significant loophole in the UK export control system.
Unscrupulous UK-based arms brokers wishing to avoid scrutiny will
simply have to conduct their business offshore to avoid UK controls.
The government should introduce full extraterritorial controls
to license all UK arms brokers on a case-by-case basis wherever
they operate. This licensing system should also be applied to
UK arms shippers and transportation agents.
89. Amnesty International strongly welcomes
the efforts of the UK government to assist conflict prevention,
security sector reform and other community safety initiatives
mentioned in the FCO report. However, we are concerned at the
use of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool to supply military
equipment to the Nepalese authorities without prior Parliamentary
scrutiny. In 2001 the UK licensed 6,780 assault rifles to Nepal.
In 2002 the Government spent £6.7 million from the Global
Conflict Prevention Pool to buy the Nepalese regime two military
helicopters, and more recently it was reported that a further
transfer of military aircraft is planned (Guardian 23 January
2004). The human rights record of the Nepalese military is sufficient
for Amnesty International to have concerns about these transfers
in their own right, and the use of the Global Conflict Prevention
Pool to underwrite some of the transfers despite strong criticism
from the Quadripartite Select Committee gives us further cause
for concern.
90. The FCO report highlights the Government's
strategy to "reduce the availability, supply, and demand
for small arms and light weapons" and gives several examples
of how the UK is assisting states to collect and destroy surplus
and illegally held weapons. Whilst supporting the FCO's aims in
this field we are concerned that these efforts are being undermined
by the marketing of the UK's own surplus small arms and ammunition
at arms fairs around the world (for example SA-80 rifles at the
Africa Aerospace and Defence exhibition in South Africa 2002,
and small arms ammunition at the IDEF exhibition in Turkey 2003).
There is also an increasing trend in the export of small arms
components and the machinery to make small arms and light weapons
which is adding to the proliferation of small arms production
capabilities around the world. Currently the government has no
control over the onward export of UK-supplied components once
they have been incorporated into complete weapons systems abroad.
The government should reserve the right to veto the re-export
of UK military components and include such a provision as a condition
of the original export licence.
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY (P152-153)
91. Amnesty International agrees with the
FCO's statement that: "all companies . . . have a responsibility
to carry out their business and production process ethically.
They should take into account people's human rights as well as
the wider impact a company's operations may have on local communities
and environment." Recent years have seen growing expectations
by consumers, investors, employees, local communities and civil
society organisations with regard to the human rights responsibilities
of companies. As the FCO concludes, it is in the company's own
interest to work actively on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
92. Amnesty International welcomes the fact
that the UK was the first country to appoint a CSR Minister in
March 2000. We are encouraged by the UK Government's support for
the UN Global Compact and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises. Both these instruments encourage companies to consider
the human rights implications before they make key business decisions.
We are further encouraged by the fact that many big UK companies
are committed to these instruments.
93. We urge the UK Government to show the
same leadership by raising awareness of and lending its support
to the UN Norms of Responsibility of Transnational Corporations
and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights. The
UN Norms are a further reference point for companies and are explicitly
focused on the human rights responsibilities of business.
94. The report states that the UK Government
expects companies operating in the UK and British companies operating
abroad to act in accordance with voluntary guidelines. Amnesty
International believes that "expecting" companies to
act in this way is not enough. While Amnesty International is
supportive of all these voluntary guidelines we believe firmly
that there must be binding legislation to ensure that all companies—not
just those already committed to the CSR agenda—take their
responsibilities seriously. Market mechanisms and voluntary frameworks
alone will not lead to higher standards of social responsibility,
unless they are accompanied with appropriate incentives and disincentives
built into the regulatory.
WOMEN'S
RIGHTS (P227-230)
95. The FCO Human Rights report includes
a specific section on women's human rights, including violence
against women. However, if women's human rights are to be firmly
placed at the centre of a human rights strategy, then a gender
perspective must be central to all areas of work. A gender perspective
should be mainstreamed through all programme areas from the development
of priorities for influencing decision-making at intergovernmental
level, to the formulation of individual country strategies. Whilst
sentences and paragraphs on women's human rights are included
throughout the FCO Human Rights Annual Report, it would be useful
to have a further explanation on the processes that exist to ensure
that gender considerations and concerns of women's rights are
included at the heart of FCO policy and strategy development.
It is critical to remember that in any country with which the
UK government has contact, concerns around violence against women
will exist. Therefore, Amnesty International would recommend that
future Human Rights Annual Reports should clearly outline its
strategic and operational approach to such issues.
96. Last year, Amnesty International had
cause to raise serious concerns levied at the UK regarding the
conduct of members of the UK armed forces in Kenya. More than
650 allegations of rape have been made by Kenyan women against
members of the UK Army posted to Kenya for training over a period
of more than 30 years. Military police are now investigating the
allegations and the MoD has stated that the investigation is complex
and would take some time to complete. Amnesty International acknowledges
the efforts now underway to investigate the allegation. However,
we are concerned that military police investigating grave misconduct
by military personnel does not meet standards with respect to
independence and impartiality.
97. Moreover, Amnesty International considers
that the systemic failures to investigate the allegations of rape
when they were made should be addressed. Consequently, we urge
the government to establish an independent and impartial commission
of inquiry into any such failures.
98. The links between conflict and increased
militarisation and incidences of violence against women have been
well documented over many years, and many conflicts. Specific
training of military personnel is required at all levels to address
gender and human rights. It is critical that the UK government
ensures that members of the armed forces are equipped with appropriate
information and understanding to ensure women's rights are respected
and protected. This is also necessary in order to ensure credibility
when UK armed forces/police participate in projects to train the
armed forces/police of other countries.
UK'S RATIFICATION
OF INTERNATIONAL
INSTRUMENTS (P73, 233)
99. Amnesty International welcomes the UK
government's prompt ratification, in December 2003, of the new
Optional Protocol under the UN Convention Against Torture.
100. We are dismayed by the declaration
made by the UK government upon ratification, in June 2003, of
the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
on the minimum age for recruitment and participation in hostilities
(P233). We do not accept the arguments advanced by the UK regarding
"exceptional circumstances in which it might not be feasible
to prevent the direct involvement of under 18s in hostilities".
Amnesty International considers the declaration made by the UK
government to have the effective force of a reservation negating
a fundamental objective of the Optional Protocol.
101. The review of the UK's stance towards
international human rights instruments, led by the Department
for Constitutional Affairs, is now well into its second year.
Amnesty International is concerned that the apparent inability
to bring the review to a conclusion may reflect a fatal combination
of low priority and no consensus within government. We believe
that the fact that the UK is one of a minority of nations that
have still to ratify any of the protocols providing for the right
of individual petition under UN international human rights instruments
detracts from its attempts to achieve further progress on the
part of others. Amnesty International calls on the Secretary of
State to use his good influence to help bring the present review
to a substantive conclusion and to help clear the path for the
UK to allow the right of individual petition under UN international
human rights instruments.
Amnesty International UK
February 2004
27 Foreign Affairs Committee Fourth report of the Session
2002-03, HC 257. Back
28
Foreign Affairs Committee, First report of Session 2000-2001,
HC 79 Back
29
FCO-"UK International Priorities. A Strategy for the FCO".
December 2003. Cm 6052. Back
| 
