Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Amnesty International UK

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

  1.  Amnesty International is a worldwide 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 focussed on preventing grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression and freedom from discrimination.

INTRODUCTION

  2.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the publication of the FCO's Human Rights Annual Report 2004 ("the FCO report"). It is a comprehensive document providing an, on the whole, thorough overview of the work that the government is doing to protect and promote human rights worldwide. It also provides the government with the opportunity to present its activities in depth and breadth and to explain its position in a competent and coherent manner. As such it contributes to a greater understanding of the government's work in this field and is an essential document for keeping the UK public informed of government policy.

  3.  Amnesty International UK similarly welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the work of the FAC Committee ("the committee") in its scrutiny of FCO human rights policy. The committee plays an invaluable role in its examination of this work and the recommendations that it makes for its improvement. The suggestions that it makes for changes to the form of the FCO report and the recommendations it makes to the government on foreign policy concerns are taken seriously by the Secretary of State and the FCO. That it continues to undertake this work is vital to the continued accountability of government policy in this field.

  4.  This submission cannot include all of AI's observations and recommendations regarding the FCO report. Amnesty International UK welcomes therefore the opportunity that the committee is providing to the organisation to present oral evidence to it when it meets in December. We will also be pleased to submit additional information should the committee require it.

COMMENT ON PURPOSE AND INTENT

UK Government Policy towards Human Rights

  5.  In last year's submission on the FCO report, Amnesty International UK stated its belief that during 2003 human rights had not been at the forefront of UK foreign policy. Changes to the funding regime for human rights projects and significant aspects of UK bilateral and multilateral relations all gave rise to this concern.

  6.  This concern has not been alleviated over the last 12 months. It is Amnesty International UK's view that the drive to counter-terrorism at home and abroad is eroding and, in some cases removing, the human rights of individuals. Thus, we see the government acting slowly to condemn practices such as ill-treatment in detention in Iraq or lack of fair trial for those detained at Guatanamo Bay. Likewise, the government's failure to fully incorporate the UN Convention Against Torture into UK law has left the door open for UK authorities to rely on evidence obtained through torture by foreign agents. We are deeply troubled by this development and concerned that it undermines the progress on torture worldwide that the government has been promoting over recent years.

  7.  It is also our contention that the government's commitment to human rights is not always evident in its response to commercial interests and domestic concerns. This is evidenced by the failure of the government to instigate proper investigations of alleged breaches by UK companies of OECD guidelines. Likewise loopholes in the Export Control Act, for example, still allow arms brokering deals by UK arms brokers without mandatory registration. And UK government policy with respect to the protection of individuals caught up in the trafficking trade leaves much to be desired.

  8.  We remain unclear about whether subsuming human rights within the work of government on other areas, specifically sustainable development, is narrowing the focus of the FCO's human rights work. The FCO strategy refers to "sustainable development, underpinned by human rights, good governance and the rule of law . . . one of the FCO's core tasks for the next decade". However, whilst sustainable development is of crucial importance for human rights work, violations of human rights persist in many high income and middle income countries. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the FCO would view some civil and political rights work, such as prison reform, as falling within a sustainable development objective. As we urged in our submission to the committee in 2003, we believe the government should uphold its earlier commitment to human rights as a theme of its work that should be a "core" task in its own right, as well as a priority that cuts across other areas of work. As the Secretary of State himself says in his forward to the FCO report, "Promoting human rights around the world is a central part of Britain's foreign policy. The more they are respected, the more stable and secure the world is . . .".

  9.  The FCO report looks forward to the progress next year on key human rights issues. With the UK taking leadership of both the EU and G8, we therefore expect the government to push for positive change through these bodies. As the Secretary of State states, "the European Union is a vital tool in helping to realise the UK's goals of promoting human rights". Likewise, as president of the G8, the FCO report stresses the Prime Minister's commitment to making tangible progress on the challenges facing Africa, the launch of the Africa Commission being designed to generate increased support for the continent.

Funding for human rights work (Annex 2)

  10.  In addition to the above, changes to human rights project funding contribute to concern that the importance of human rights to the government is in decline. As of the beginning of the 2004-05 financial year, the Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF) was folded into the recently created Global Opportunities Fund (GOF). The HRPF was acknowledged to be an excellent fund, relatively un-bureaucratic and clearly targeted towards human rights promotion and protection. According to the FCO report, the creation of the GOF will mean that the FCO will spend more money on "human rights, good governance and democracy projects". Amnesty International UK is concerned however, that these changes may in fact mean that human rights work per se will receive less, not more, financial support.

  11.  Under the previous funding structure, the promotion and protection of human rights was a stand-alone beneficiary of government funding. This arrangement had the advantage of emphasising the value that government placed on human rights and making it clear what that value was worth. By talking now of funding for "human rights, good governance and democracy projects", the value of human rights work as separate from good governance and democracy projects is not clear. Concomitantly, unfortunately, nor is its worth. In addition, whilst certainly good governance and democracy projects can promote human rights, our fear is that they may in some cases displace human rights projects, which will now not receive funding.

  12.  The government contends that human rights projects will receive increased funding through the GOF programmes of Engaging with the Islamic World, the Re-uniting Europe Programme and Strengthening Relations with Emerging Markets. Aside from concern that these programmes may not have human rights protection as a central objective, it is our understanding that the geographic scope of such funds will cover many fewer countries, continent by continent. This may have the advantage of focussing attention on specific areas—but it also results in the withdrawal of support from small groups in many places which were previously doing extremely good work.

  13.  A brief and cursory examination of the figures provided in Annex 2 adds to our concern further. Even including those figures provided for the 2003-04 financial year (and presumably repeated in 2004-05), we are unable to identify expenditure (in 2004-05) beyond £8 million. This is considerably less than the £11 million figure the FCO says it is spending on human rights this year. It would appear some clarification is needed and we hope that the Committee will be able to obtain a detailed breakdown of all projects and activities contributing to the £11 million figure.

  14.  Amnesty International UK is concerned about the nature of funding for human rights projects per se. We believe that there should be greater clarity about what funding is being given for recognisably human rights projects and that future reports should strive to provide this more explicitly than done this year.

Content and Structure of report

  15.  In our submission to the Committee of 2003, we stated our belief that further reports of the FCO could be strengthened by the identification of targets and benchmarks. We appreciate therefore the fact, particularly in relation to the section on Challenges and Progress, that short sections called "Looking Ahead" have been included at the conclusion of each country discussion. We urge that further reports build on this process of forward thinking to draw up clear objectives and strategies against which to measure progress. Such a process could be applied to each FCO post doing so for its own human rights work in individual countries. As the committee noted in its 2003 report, the very task of compilation of the FCO report focuses the attention of the FCO on its obligations in the field. As we recommended to the committee in our submission of 2003, an even clearer focus on objectives and strategies would enhance this process, we believe.

  16.  We note that the first chapter of the FCO report makes it clear that the FCO report is not intended to duplicate the work of NGOs such as Amnesty International, but that it does set out key human rights issues in certain countries and regions of greatest concern. We are pleased to see that this section has expanded further this year, including continued reference to Saudi Arabia—the committee may recall that Amnesty International UK criticised the 2002 report for providing material on Saudi Arabia that was of low quality. Bill Rammell raised concerns in his evidence to the committee on the 2003 report about the burden compiling the FCO report places on FCO staff, but this is, by necessity, what is required if the FCO report is to remain reliable and of value. Not only is this in itself important if the FCO report is to be a legitimate tool of accountability, but it is also vital if it is to be taken seriously by the committee in its scrutinising role (see paragraphs two and three above). We would urge the FCO therefore to maintain its commitment to producing a report of this nature and welcome, in particular, the extent of country reporting contained in Chapter One.

  17.  Amnesty International UK urges the FCO to work closely with NGOs and Parliament to continue to monitor the structure and content of the FCO report and ensure continued high standards. As the FCO report itself states, the government has a continuous and constructive dialogue with human rights NGOs and is accountable to Parliament. The fact that the government undertakes this process of consultation is a valuable demonstration of its commitment to human rights and an example of accountability to those governments whose commitment to human rights is poor. These are valuable indicators of support for global human rights. The organisation agrees that the FCO maintains a good dialogue with NGOs and urges the department to enhance further this process of consultation, both with bodies operating in the UK and with civil society groups operating overseas.

COUNTERING "TERRORISM" (PP 13-17)

  18.  Amnesty International UK has grave concerns over the manner in which the drive to counter "terrorism" at home and abroad is eroding human rights guarantees and being used to justify the pursuit of repressive agendas by countries around the world. We see the need for a global strategy to fight "terrorism" that addresses its root causes and strengthens the rule of law and fundamental human rights. There should be better instruments for global counter-terrorism cooperation within legal frameworks that respect civil liberties and human rights. We are in full agreement with the view expressed on page 13 of the FCO report affirming that the pursuit of a counter-terrorism agenda does not offer justifiable cause to cast aside human rights guarantees. And we readily add our endorsement to the FCO's argument that repressing human rights in the name of countering "terrorism" puts at risk the qualities and values of life that such action would ostensibly seek to preserve.

  19.  Amnesty International UK echoes the FCO report's condemnation of acts such as the Bali and Madrid bombings and the horrors of 11 September 2001. We were all appalled by the horrendous conclusion to the school siege in the North Ossetian town of Beslan. There can be no justification for hostage taking and the killing and maiming of innocent civilians. Targeting people, particularly children, going about their daily business shows complete contempt for human rights and humanity. Such acts must stop and those responsible must be brought to justice.

  20.  Amnesty International UK recognises the obligation on all states to act to protect their citizens. But the hunt for the "terrorist" cannot simply ride roughshod over the fundamental rights of individuals and communities. It has become only too easy for governments around the world, under the guise of combating "terrorism", to erode human rights principles, standards and values and openly pursue repressive agendas. People's fears and prejudices have been heightened and manipulated, using the language of "counter-terrorism", as governments have introduced or resurrected repressive practices.

UK anti-terrorism measures

  21.  Amnesty International UK continues to have serious concerns over actions, detailed in section 1.1 of the FCO report, that are being taken by the UK government in response to the perceived "terrorist" threat to the UK. We are pressing for repeal of the powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, that allow detention of foreign nationals by the executive, without charge or trial and without time limit, on the basis of secret evidence which those held cannot hear or see or are able to effectively challenge. We consider that the government should release all persons detained unless charged with a recognisably criminal offence and guaranteed a fair trial.

  22.  We also note with concern recent reported proposals by the Home Secretary for new domestic counter-terrorism measures involving the adoption of a lower (civil) standard of proof for certain "terrorist" offences and for dispensing with jury trials for "terrorist" cases.

Guantánamo Bay

  23.  Amnesty International UK considers that the totality of the regime at Guantánamo Bay amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Some 580 people from 42 countries are detained, most held now for nearly three years. They are held without charge, without access to their families and overwhelmingly without access to legal counsel. Four UK nationals and at least three former UK residents are among those still held. Five UK nationals were released without charge in March 2004 and have faced no further legal action in the UK.

  24.  The US government has set up specially established military commissions to try some of the detainees and preliminary hearings have started. Amnesty International has accepted an invitation to attend these trials. However, the organisation remains deeply concerned that they will not meet international fair trial standards and will contravene US obligations under international law.

  25.  Amnesty International UK firmly believes 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. It follows that we agree with the UK government's assessment (page 18 of the FCO report) that "the proposed military commissions would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial according to international standards." However, the UK government has been slow to voice this view and has chosen not to raise the level of its concern beyond the four UK nationals still held; either to address the plight of long-term UK residents also being held or to condemn the unacceptable nature of the entire Guantánamo process. Amnesty International suggests that the committee ask the government to explain why it has not done so and what it proposes to say about the process in the future.

TORTURE (PP 182-187)

  26.  The FCO report states that "Torture is abhorrent and illegal and the UK is opposed to the use of torture under all circumstances."

  27.  Amnesty International UK endorses these words wholeheartedly. We are appalled, therefore, at the government's creeping acceptance of the practice of torture. The government's failure to incorporate fully its obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture into domestic law has left open the door for UK authorities to rely on information and "evidence" obtained through torture by foreign agents on foreign soil.

  28.  Rulings of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Court of Appeal (accepting the arguments put forward by government lawyers) mean that "evidence" extracted under torture of a third party is not only admissible in proceedings relating to the detention of suspected foreign terrorists under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 but may also be relied upon by the tribunal in reaching its judgements. Such "evidence" is only barred if directly or indirectly procured by UK agents.

  29.  The government argue that they "unreservedly condemn the use of torture and have worked hard with our international partners to eradicate this practice. However, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to take appropriate account of any information which could help to protect national security and public safety".[1]

  30.  Amnesty International UK would further ask, however, whether the government would accept the torture of UK nationals at the hands of foreign agents or the use of "evidence" obtained in this fashion in proceedings involving UK nationals facing trial in other countries. If the answer is no, then its position at home is morally indefensible; if the answer is yes it stands in breach of its obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.

  31.  On 29 November 2004, as part of its examination of the UK government's fourth periodic report, the UN Committee Against Torture called on the government to make a formal undertaking that it will not rely on, or present "evidence" obtained through torture in any proceedings. Amnesty International UK adds its strong endorsement of this call for the need for a clear and unequivocal statement from the UK government.

DEATH PENALTY (PP 187-192)

  32.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the government's abolitionist stance on the death penalty worldwide and in particular the ratification of Protocol 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights in October 2003.

  33.  Amnesty International UK is represented on the FCO's death penalty panel, which has recently discussed the execution of child offenders, persons who are convicted of crimes whilst under the age of 18 years old and sentenced to death. It is noted that the USA and Somalia remain the only countries worldwide not to have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which renders the execution of child offenders illegal. Indeed, the USA, with Iran, remains one of the worst offenders in executing child offenders. Amnesty International recommends that the UK address the issue of child executions worldwide in line with the FCO focus on "reducing the application of the death penalty" and looks forward to a continued commitment from the government to achieving an end to this practice, including the encouragement and support for the implementation of legislation making the execution of child offenders illegal, in accordance with international human rights law.

  34.  Amnesty International UK continues to campaign on the case of Kenny Richey, a dual US/UK national, who is now entering his 19th year on death row in Ohio, USA. We welcome the decision of the UK government to file an Amicus Brief to the Ohio, 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in this case—which we have described as "one of the most compelling cases of innocence that human rights campaigners have ever seen". Amnesty International UK would welcome the Committee asking the UK government for details on what representations it intends to make in the event of the Court of Appeal upholding the death sentence on Kenny Richey. We would also recommend that the UK government develop a transparent, consistent and codified strategy for representation and intervention on all cases of British nationals on death row worldwide.

ARMS CONTROL

Domestic controls (pp 88-89)

  35.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the implementation of the Export Control Act 2002 which was completed on 1 May 2004. However, the new legislation fails to fulfil the commitment in the last Labour Party election manifesto to "control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located"[2]. We have repeatedly lobbied for arms and security equipment deals brokered by UK nationals to be subject to a licensing requirement wherever the activity takes place, not just in the UK. The new legislation limits the licensing requirement to brokering activity within the UK[3], allowing unscrupulous dealers to avoid UK controls by stepping out of the country to do business.

  36.  The FCO Human Rights Annual Report rightly highlights the purpose of the controls on brokers as being, "to prevent the UK from being used as a base for irresponsible and immoral trafficking or brokering of arms for use in conflict zones and other sensitive areas, or to abuse human rights". As pointed out in previous Amnesty International UK submissions, there is evidence that much of the weaponry used in today's conflict zones and by armed groups has been transferred by arms brokers and traffickers.

  37.  Sudan is no exception. Amnesty International UK urges the government to make public the results of its investigation into allegations raised in recent press reports[4] (also cited in the AI report: Sudan; arming the perpetrators of grave abuses in Darfur) that a UK firm, Endeavour Resources UK Ltd, negotiated on behalf of the Sudanese authorities for the supply of Brazilian handguns and large numbers of Antonov aircraft from a Ukrainian arms export company. To our knowledge this activity was not licensed by the UK government and would appear to be in breach of an EU arms embargo in place on Sudan since 1994. The government should use its new powers under the Export Control Act to establish whether the company has broken UK law. If this is found to be the case, the government must show that the new Act has teeth in order for it to be effective at preventing the UK from being used as a base for irresponsible arms brokering.

International controls (pp 136-137)

  38.  Amnesty International UK believes that arms transfer controls, whether for small arms and light weapons or for all conventional arms, should be based on states' existing obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law as set out in the draft Arms Trade Treaty. We recognise the valuable work the UK government is doing through the Transfer Controls Initiative as part of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. We also strongly welcome the recent statement by Foreign Secretary Rt Hon Jack Straw MP that the UK government will "start work soon [. . .] to build support for an international Arms Trade Treaty, further to extend the international rule of law." (speech at Labour Party Conference, 30 September 2004).

  39.  It is vital that this statement is consolidated in the form of an election manifesto commitment and statement to Parliament. As noted by the Foreign Secretary in his response to the FAC Fourth Report "such a treaty would need to attract the support of all major arms exporting countries to be effective. [. . .] we recognise that some of its principles are similar to those we are promoting as part of the Transfer Controls Initiative"[5].

  40.  Amnesty International UK agrees and therefore welcomes support from the UK government, itself a major arms exporter. The EU and G8 Presidencies offer the UK government clear opportunities to raise the Arms Trade Treaty with other influential states. The government should make a statement to Parliament setting out its strategy for engaging with international partners to build support for an Arms Trade Treaty, in particular detailing how it will approach the other major arms exporting nations. The government should also clarify the links between the Transfer Controls Initiative and the proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (PP 89-90, 137-138)

Voluntarism versus regulation

  41.  Amnesty International UK concurs with the FCO's statement that "All companies have a responsibility to conduct their business ethically. This means taking into account human rights as well as the impact a company's operations may have on local communities and environments." While we also support the assertion that "Government has a role in encouraging and stimulating corporate social responsibility", we believe that this should be combined with direct action by the government to address the adverse impacts of companies—a "carrot and stick" approach. The emphasis in the FCO report on the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights pre-supposes that these initiatives are having an effect in improving the human rights impacts of companies. Amnesty International UK urges the government to appraise critically such voluntary commitments on the part of business and not to use them as a justification for opposing regulatory frameworks to hold companies to account for their behaviour.

National and international regulation

  42.  We welcome the government's promotion of "universal standards of behaviour and values in human rights and labour relations" and the assertion that companies should aspire to such standards "going beyond minimum standards that may be enshrined in local law". However, the following assertion that universal standards "are not a substitute for local law" misses the point. While national law remains the most important means of ensuring legal accountability in relation to companies' impacts, systems of regulation are inadequate in many countries, either because the legal framework itself is weak or because there is an absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. Many national governments are often unwilling, constrained or simply unable to hold companies operating in their country accountable for their adverse impacts. Amnesty International believes that this reinforces the need for an international human rights framework that can be applied to companies directly, acting as a catalyst for national legal reform and serving as a benchmark for national law and regulations.

Specific initiatives

UN Norms

  43.  We welcome the role of the UK government in co-sponsoring a resolution at the Commission for Human Rights ("CHR") in 2004 which requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a report on the scope and legal status of existing initiatives and standards relating to the responsibility of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights. We are encouraged that the government looks forward to "working with a cross-regional group of states in order to move the issue of CSR forward at next year's CHR." Amnesty International views the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights as the most credible attempt yet to establish a set of global human rights standards that will be applicable to companies wherever they operate.

OECD Guidelines

  44.  With regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, we note that the FCO "encourage all companies operating in the UK and British companies operating overseas to work in accordance with the guidelines". However, whilst the guidelines are often cited as an integral part of the UK government's policy towards CSR, it appears to exercise careful control over their application, seems unwilling to declare companies in breach of the guidelines and lacks the political will to make them effective. We therefore urge the UK Government to ensure the full and impartial investigation of complaints against UK companies with regard to alleged breaches of the guidelines.

Conflict Diamonds

  45.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the efforts of the UK government to help eradicate the trade in conflict diamonds, most notably through its active participation and support for the Kimberley Process. However, we are concerned that almost two years after the diamond industry agreed to a system of self-regulation to support the Kimberley Process and prevent the trade in diamonds from regions of conflict, many retailers in the UK are still failing to provide consumers with assurances that the diamonds they sell are conflict-free. In order to be effective and fully support the aims of the Kimberley Process, this self-regulation should move beyond being voluntary. We therefore call on the Government Diamond Office to carry out rigorous auditing and inspections of companies to ensure that the industry is implementing the regulations it has committed to and to report back to the Kimberley Process about these efforts in 2005.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS (PP 229-238)

International Fora

  46.  Amnesty International UK notes the UK government's promotion of women's human rights in international fora. In particular we welcome the decision of the UK government to accept the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and recommend that the UK government publicise the operation of the mechanism before the Protocol comes into force in March 2005. However Amnesty International UK is concerned that the CEDAW Committee has been unable to examine the fifth periodic report of the UK this year due to a backlog and may be unable to consider it until 2008. This illustrates the need for greater funding of the CEDAW Committee to increase the number of its sessions and to ensure that it is able to clear the backlog and operate effectively.

  47.  The implementation of Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) will be reviewed at the 49th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in March 2005. Amnesty International UK is greatly concerned about the failure of many states to implement the BPFA and requests that the UK government support the appointment by the CSW of a Special Rapporteur on Discriminatory Laws to ensure that both CEDAW and BPFA are effectively implemented.

Women in Conflict

  48.  We agree with the FCO report that "Women and children are disproportionately targeted in armed conflicts and constitute the majority of victims". Our research on a number of countries including DRC, Colombia and Sudan indicates that women and girls are the systematic targets of violence, in particular sexual violence, from state, paramilitary and opposition forces as well as armed criminal groups during conflict. In our view, governments and transitional administrations in those countries are not implementing UN Security Resolution 1325, which reaffirms women's protection in armed conflict and post-conflict situations and stresses the importance of women's participation in peace building and conflict resolutions. We ask that the UK government devote its best efforts to working with the governments of the above countries to ensure that UN SCR 1325 is properly implemented.

  49.  Amnesty International UK is extremely concerned that the FCO report fails to make the link between the sharp increase in violence against women and the conflict and post-conflict situation in Iraq. A number of factors, including the general lack of security and increased militarisation, have led to an increase in harassment, assaults, abductions and killings of women. In addition, in some cases unveiled women and female activists have faced threats from armed Islamist groups. Amnesty International UK is not aware of any steps that have been taken by the interim Iraqi government to ensure adequate protection of women and women rights defenders. The organisation therefore calls upon the UK government to redouble its efforts to influence the interim Iraqi government to ensure the full implementation of UN SCR 1325 in Iraq.

Violence Against Women

  50.  Although the Committee may consider violence against women in the UK to fall primarily within the remit of other parliamentary select committees, Amnesty International UK notes that the government is under international obligations to work towards the elimination of gender based violence and discrimination. These obligations include CEDAW and the Beijing Platform for Action. The latter includes a commitment to devise a national strategy on violence against women. Whilst there have been a number of positive legislative measures recently, including the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and the recent Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, incidence rates of violence against women remain high and prosecution rates remain low. Overall, Amnesty International UK's research shows that there remain significant gaps in the UK government's approach to addressing all forms of violence against women, with regards to planning, data collection research, prevention and attitude change, implementation of legislation, training and provision of support for victims. We call upon the UK government therefore to devise a national strategy on violence against women, in honour of its commitment to the Beijing Platform for Action.

  51.  Internationally, we welcome the UK's sponsorship of a joint resolution on honour crimes with the Turkish government which we expect to be successfully adopted at the 59th session of the UN GA in 2004, and urge the UK Government to continue its opposition to allowing custom, tradition or religion to be invoked to justify or excuse violence against women in any country.

Trafficking

  52.  The UK Government has not ratified the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking in Persons. Amnesty International UK understands that once the matter of the execution of foreign requests for the seizure of instrumentalities is addressed in the impending Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill the UK Government should be in a position to ratify the UN Protocol. The UK Government has also chosen not to opt in to the 2004 EU Directive providing short term residence permits, employment rights and education and training for victims of trafficking who comply with prosecutions of traffickers. We call upon the UK Government to ratify the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking in Persons therefore and to use its presidency of the EU to put pressure upon the remaining 11 EU states who have also not ratified the UN Protocol to do so forthwith.

  53.  The Council of Europe is currently drafting a convention on the trafficking of human beings. The scope of this convention is not limited to protecting those trafficked into sexual exploitation as stated in the FCO report. Amnesty International UK has in particular called upon the following protections to be granted to all persons identified as trafficked; three month reflection periods, full health care, education and employment rights and renewable residence permits and/or right to asylum for trafficked persons who are at risk on return. We are deeply concerned that in negotiations the UK Government has opposed the inclusion of the above protections. We call upon the UK government to robustly support the protection of the rights of trafficked victims within the draft European Convention on trafficking, and to become a signatory to the Convention in 2005.

REPORT OF THE UN HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON THREATS, CHALLENGES AND CHANGE

  54.  The FCO report does not refer to the setting up and initial work of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The Panel's final report was published on 1 December 2004 and addresses the need for effective collective responses to the common security problems and challenges facing member states of the United Nations.

  55.  Amnesty International welcomes publication of the Panel's report and the emphasis placed on the central role of the UN to protect human rights when dealing with global threats and challenges. We also welcome the Panel's support for the persistent efforts by the UN Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to integrate human rights throughout the UN and to help develop strong domestic human rights institutions, especially in countries that emerge from conflict and in the fight against terrorism.

  56.  We urge the UK government, when considering the many recommendations made by the Panel, to ensure that the protection of human rights is central to their deliberations and that the views of civil society on the human rights aspects of this important report are taken fully into account. We consider that the UK government should encourage the Security Council to immediately implement the Panel's recommendation that the High Commissioner for Human Rights report regularly to the Council about how the human rights provisions in its resolutions are being implemented.

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (PP 115-117)

Thematic resolutions

  57.  Amnesty International UK welcomes a number of outcomes from the 60th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In particular we welcome the adoption of a resolution on the elimination of violence against women. The elimination of such violence is a long-term campaign goal for Amnesty International UK and the attention the CHR has given to this important issue is encouraging.

  58.  The FCO report mentions the joint working between Amnesty International UK, the UK government and the EU in developing a lobbying strategy for the death penalty resolution. Like the UK government, we too were disappointed that some of the countries that had co-sponsored the resolution last year failed to do so again this year. We look forward to working closely with the UK government at next year's session and aim to again increase the number of co-sponsors.

  59.  The adoption of the resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism was another welcome development, particularly given the global impact on human rights by counter-terrorism measures states are imposing. The resolution mandates an Independent Expert to examine this issue for a year. Amnesty International UK has called for a Special Rapporteur with a monitoring mandate to be set up on a more permanent basis. We suggest the Committee asks whether the UK government agrees that a Special Rapporteur with a monitoring mandate should be set up to monitor the impact of counter terrorism measures on human rights.

  60.  Amnesty International UK shares the UK government's disappointment that Brazil withdrew its resolution on sexual orientation at the CHR and is encouraged that the EU will continue to support efforts towards building consensus on this important human rights issue.

Country resolutions

  61.  Amnesty International UK is pleased to note initiatives on a number of countries, including Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Myanmar and Turkmenistan. We agree with the FCO's conclusion that the UK as part of the EU achieved some important successes. We remain concerned about the lack of scrutiny of the human rights situation in a number of countries, however. We also share the UK government's frustration at the repeated misuse of no-action motions, for example, with regard to Chechnya, despite compelling evidence of the serious and systematic violations of human rights in that region.[6] The FCO report states that: "the UK . . . believes that political peer pressure gives the international community a useful and legitimate tool for improving human rights in individual countries." Amnesty International concurs and calls on the UK government to work for a CHR that is able to examine and tackle human rights violations wherever these occur.

  62.  Amnesty International UK remains greatly concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It has expressed its concern over the CHR's decision to replace the Special Rapporteur on the DRC with an Independent Expert focusing on advisory and technical services. The UK as part of the EU should have pressed for maintaining the Special Rapporteur in order to ensure continuing independent monitoring of the human rights situation in that country.

  63.  In addition, Amnesty International UK remains dismayed at the failure of this year's CHR to take a robust approach in examining the human rights situation in Sudan. The weakly worded decision on Sudan is presented in the FCO report as a success. In fact it was a very meagre response given the situation in Darfur, a situation which even before the CHR, commentators including Amnesty International UK were warning could spiral into a human rights catastrophe.

  64.  Finally, the CHR's attention to the situation of detainees held in Guatánamo Bay is long overdue. CHR member states should take urgent steps to examine the human rights situation in Guatánamo Bay and to address this human rights scandal. Amnesty International suggests that the Committee asks the UK government whether or not it believes that the human rights situation in Guatánamo Bay should be examined by the CHR and urges that it do so.

EUROPEAN UNION (PP 93-111)

External Relations

  65.  The European Union is well placed to take a lead globally in confronting human rights abuse. Amnesty International UK believes that too often human rights have been dispensed with in the face of strong opposition or become negotiable when confronted with other interests. There is a need to close the gap between rhetoric and practice through a more coherent approach, with human rights as an essential element in all the EU external relations. Amnesty International UK recommends that the UK government uses its Presidency in the second half of next year to ensure that human rights really is at the forefront of all EU Polices. Additionally, we hope that the committee will press the Minister on what the UK government intends to do in relation to human rights promotion when it has the Presidency.

The human rights clause

  66.  As stated in the report, all EU agreements with third countries now include a human rights clause. The report goes on to say that these clauses are used as a basis for dialogue on human rights and also carry the possibility of adverse consequences if human rights are violated—for example aid has been suspended to Zimbabwe, Haiti and Liberia.

  67.  Amnesty International UK believes that the monitoring of compliance with the human rights clause should be put on to a more formal basis, with regular and impartial monitoring of the human rights situation on the ground and the setting of specific objectives that have to be met. These objectives could be taken from recommendations made by UN human rights bodies, such as the UNCHR or the UN Human Rights Committee. The EU agreements should be a starting point for mutually agreed and cooperatively implemented programmes to advance human rights protection in the country concerned. Establishing a monitoring mechanism and implementation of the human rights clause could be adopted by the UK government as an objective for its Presidency.

  68.  The report mentions a number of occasions when the EU has raised concerns about human rights with third countries with whom it has an agreement, but no information is given on what happens next if the situation does not improve. Amnesty International UK believes that human rights should be a standing separate item on all agendas of meetings with third countries with whom the EU has an agreement where there are human rights concerns. We suggest that the committee asks whether the EU always raises human rights, as a matter of course, with countries where it has concerns. It might also like to enquire what the EU is doing to monitor compliance with the human rights clause and what sanctions are available to it, other than suspension of aid, if there is little progress.

Human rights guidelines

  69.  As the report states there are now EU guidelines on human rights dialogues, the death penalty, torture, children and armed conflict and human rights defenders. While welcoming these guidelines, Amnesty International UK is concerned that they are not being adequately implemented. Amnesty International UK believes that there should be a focal point for the effective implementation of these guidelines and that this role could be fulfilled by the appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights. The committee may like to ask the UK government if it is satisfied with the implementation of the guidelines and whether it believes that there are sufficient resources allocated to their implementation. In addition, we suggest that the committee asks if the government supports the appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights.

EU human rights dialogues

  70.  The report states that at these dialogues the EU raises concerns about specific human rights concerns, including highlighting individual cases. The aim of human rights dialogues, as laid down in the EU guidelines, are that they should produce tangible results in the human rights performances of the countries concerned related to concrete benchmarks. Amnesty International suggests that the committee ask the minister what measurable improvements the UK government considers have been made as a result of the human rights dialogues with Iran and China. We suggest that it also asks how the government thinks that the EU could conduct this dialogue in a more effective and transparent manner.

Human Rights in the EU

  71.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the UK government's support for the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is essential that human rights are effectively observed and guaranteed within the EU itself if the EU is to be a credible force for human rights in its external relations. Amnesty International UK is disappointed that the EU Council has failed to acknowledge and address human rights problems within the EU's own boundaries. It has not responded to the Commission's communication of October 2003 on the application of Article Seven of the Treaty of the European Union. While we welcome proposals for a Human Rights Agency, the Commission's suggestion that this should be "a lightweight structure in terms of staff and budget" does not inspire confidence. Amnesty International recommends that the EU Council set up a dedicated Council Working Group to address human rights within the EU.

COMMISSION FOR AFRICA (P 130)

  72.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the opportunity to input into the work of the Commission for Africa. We believe that the Commission has the potential to re-focus EU & G8 attention on the continent. It is encouraging that the FCO report notes that the Commission aims to generate increased support for existing initiatives including the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

  73.  Amnesty International UK believes that the Commission should have a central aim of achieving basic human rights for all. In order to deliver on its objectives the Commission should take concrete steps to consult widely with African civil society, be clear about how exactly it will add value and ensure that there will be coherence and synergy across the Commission's thematic work. We support the Commission's aim to "overcome cynicism within Africa" towards this initiative and its commitment to build support for its work through public consultations within Africa.

  74.  Amnesty International UK asks that the Commission focus on eliminating violence against women in Africa, by calling on African governments to ratify and implement relevant international instruments such as the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and adopt and enforce laws to protect women. It should also actively push for the adoption of an international arms trade treaty to regulate arms transfers according to recognised standards of human rights and humanitarian law in time for the UN Small Arms Review Conference in 2006. Like the UK government, Amnesty International UK also supported the protocol to establish the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, which entered into force in January 2004. The establishment of a fully effective and widely supported African Court should be a priority, as should efforts to strengthen justice sectors.

IRAQ (PP 18-26)

  75.  The annual report highlights the UK government's contributions to human rights in Iraq and some of the positive developments there. Amnesty International has itself noted improvements in rights to freedom of expression and association, contributing to a proliferation of newspapers, political parties and human rights NGOs, including women's rights organisations. These are welcome developments and it is important that the Foreign Office draws attention to them. However, the annual report does not go into sufficient detail on the human rights problems of the past 12 months or the daunting challenges that remain.

Insecurity

  76.  For most Iraqis, lack of security is their biggest concern. Car bombs, suicide bombs and kidnapping of foreign nationals by armed opposition groups are a regular occurrence. Scores of Ba'ath party and security force members are being killed in revenge attacks, especially in Shia areas of Baghdad and in the South. Iraqi civilians are targeted for kidnapping, often by criminal gangs for financial gain and armed groups have also killed or attacked suspected alcohol sellers, video sellers and adherents of other religions. The incidence of violence against women has increased exponentially.

  77.  Responsibility is rarely claimed for these attacks and killings. On a visit to southern Iraq in February-March 2004, Amnesty International found that few people had any faith in the Iraqi Police Service's (IPS) ability or willingness to investigate such incidents. One police station chief told the organisation that families of victims of past abuses were right to avenge the deaths of relatives. Whilst another member of the service did acknowledge the negative impact of such attacks on the rule of law, Amnesty International UK remains concerned about both the capacity and the willingness of the IPS to investigate the abuses.

  78.  The security environment in Iraq is complex and challenging for members of the Multinational Force (MNF), Iraqi security forces and for Iraq's citizens. The annual report would have benefited from a more comprehensive description of the different challenges, as well as the current and expected capacity of security to deal with the various threats. The committee might wish to seek this analysis through written or oral evidence from the government and should, in any case, request that greater attention be paid to this issue in next year's annual report or in a separate "human rights dossier" for Iraq.

Use of excessive force by international forces

  79.  There are very real concerns about the use of force by the US military in operations around Falluja or elsewhere. In September 2004, Amnesty International UK called for inquiries in the wake of attacks by the US near Falluja and on Haifa Street, Baghdad. Concern has also been expressed by Amnesty International and other agencies about respect for the laws of war during the recent operation in Najaf, both by US forces and by armed groups. Yet, there is no acknowledgement of such concerns in the annual report. The FCO fails to state whether it does or does not share these concerns and whether there has been any dialogue with the US government on this matter. This is a serious omission.

  80.  During the past 12 months, Amnesty International UK has also raised concerns about specific cases of individuals killed by UK forces in disputed circumstances. The organisation has exchanged detailed correspondence with both the MoD and the FCO on this matter, as well as meetings with ministers and officials of both departments. We welcome this dialogue but remained concerned that the military's investigation processes are not sufficiently independent or transparent.

Torture and ill-treatment

  81.  The abuses in Abu Ghraib prison perpetrated by US forces is covered in one paragraph of a box on page 21 of the annual report. The Foreign Secretary is quoted as describing the images as "utterly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful". Amnesty International agrees. We would have welcomed a description of any representations made to the US government by the UK government on this matter, however, as throughout the conflict the UK government has demonstrated a marked reluctance to question or criticise the conduct of US forces, at least in public. The prevailing stance has been that operations and incidents occurring in the US sector are a matter for the US military and government, but it is important to note that the Geneva Conventions require state parties not only to respect their provisions themselves but also to ensure their respect by others. The government should indicate how it has been meeting this obligation.

  82.  The box on page 21 acknowledges that allegations of torture and ill-treatment have also been made against UK forces. Amnesty International is concerned that investigations into these allegations lack sufficient independence or transparency. The failing is further highlighted by the application of double standards for the detention of individuals during the occupation. Those detained by the Iraqi security forces must now have their case reviewed within 24 hours, whilst those detained by Coalition forces could be held for 90 days before being brought before a judge (and some were held for weeks beyond this deadline). In addition, the box on page 21 notes that "standard operating procedures require the Multinational Force to notify relatives of the detention of internees within 24 hours of their internment" although we know of allegations of "ghost detainees" where the USA has failed even to notify the ICRC of a detention. The committee might wish to enquire from the Minister therefore whether UK, US and other forces are uniformly adhering to this principle, how relatives are informed, whether they are notified of the place of detention, or any change in the place of detention and when they are granted access.

  83.  Whilst allegations of abuse by coalition forces have dominated the headlines in the west, it is also important to note that Amnesty International has concerns about abuse of detainees in the custody of Iraqi security forces, as well as by illegal detention by armed groups. For example, the organisation has heard of allegations of torture in the "Intelligence Directorate" in Basra. The "Intelligence Directorate" is operated by the Badr Organisation, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). The committee might wish to enquire of the government what steps have been taken to prevent torture and ill-treatment by Iraqi security forces and what action has been taken in response to allegations of torture by armed groups.

Accounting for the abuses of the past

  84.  Amnesty International welcomed the arrest of Saddam Hussein in December 2003. The organisation believes that he, like others suspected of responsibility for the serious human rights violations of the past, should be brought to justice in accordance with international standards. A significant amount of time has however elapsed between the announcement of the Special Tribunal, the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the publication of all of the instruments required for the tribunal, for example the rules of procedure and evidence. The organisation had concerns about Saddam Hussein's initial appearance in court. He was not permitted defence counsel and, although security concerns were undoubtedly an issue, media attendance was initially limited to US organisations only.

  85.  Amnesty International notes the discovery of mass graves. Many tens of thousands of people "disappeared" in Iraq over the past 20 years and it is important for relatives of victims that efforts are made to discover the fate and whereabouts of loved ones. It is also important that forensic and other evidence is preserved which may be of use in future proceedings to establish accountability for past crimes.

  86.  The UK government should insist that the rules of the special tribunal as well as its operation are in strict conformity with the highest international standards. The government should also set out the efforts made to locate mass graves and, when found, to preserve evidence both for the identification of bodies and for use in any future proceedings.

Transparency and application of international standards

  87.  Amnesty International believes that the abuses detailed above have taken place because of a lack of willingness to accept the application of international human rights law and standards in Iraq. In a letter to Amnesty International dated 27 June 2003, the Administrator of the CPA, Ambassador Paul Bremer, said "the only relevant standard applicable to the Coalition's detention practices is the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. This Convention takes precedence, as a matter of law, over other human rights conventions". However, human rights law is also applicable and Amnesty International is similarly surprised by the UK government's failure to accept that the European Convention on Human Rights also applies in the areas under its control. The organisation believes that the coalition should have been reaching for the highest standards, rather than seeking to deny their applicability. The degree of human rights rhetoric used by political leaders in the build-up to military action and during the occupation puts this failure into a particularly harsh light.

  88.  It also makes it more surprising that the UN Commission on Human Rights failed to appoint a Special Rapporteur for Iraq at its 2004 session. This is the first time for 10 years that there has been no special rapporteur for the country. In the interests of transparency, Amnesty International believes that the UK should have been lobbying for this mechanism to be retained. The UK government should indicate whether it lobbied for the retention of a Special Rapporteur for Iraq at the UN Commission on Human Rights in 2004. If it did not lobby for this position, we ask that it explains why it did not do so. In any case, the UK should work for the reinstatement of this mechanism at the next session of UNCHR.

  89.  A similar failure to accept the highest standards was demonstrated during the negotiation of UN Security Council Resolution 1546, which paved the way for the handover of governing authority to the Interim Government of Iraq. The resolution included a welcome reference to "the commitment of all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law, and to cooperate with relevant international organisations". However, this fell short of a proposal from Brazil, Chile and Spain, supported by a majority of Security Council members, to state the human rights and international humanitarian law obligations in unambiguous terms and to include them in the binding part of the resolution. It is not clear why the resolution's drafters—the UK and USA—failed to do so and we ask that the government explain its position.

DARFUR, SUDAN (PP 31-34)

  90.  Amnesty International UK welcomes the recent visits to Sudan made by senior members of the UK government, including the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary. In addition, we warmly welcome the efforts made by the Foreign Secretary in securing Amnesty International access to Darfur. There is no doubt that his timely intervention was instrumental in our organisation obtaining visas.

  91.  However we believe that the international public condemnation and focus on Darfur has come very late. The FCO report notes that Amnesty International published its report on the use of rape as a weapon of war this July. As early as January 2003 however, we raised our concerns about the deteriorating situation in Darfur, calling for an independent international commission of inquiry in April 2003. Throughout 2003 we denounced attacks on civilians and raised concerns about the Sudanese government's involvement. But it was not until the following year that the international community, including the UK government, spoke out. Amnesty International UK suggests that the committee asks the UK government when it became aware of the deteriorating human rights situation in Darfur and why it waited so long before publicly raising concerns about the gravity of the abuses committed.

  92.  Amnesty International UK agrees that "respect for basic human rights and international humanitarian law must underpin the Sudanese government's and the international community's response." Lessons must be learned from how the crisis has been handled so far and solutions developed that offer timely, effective and long-lasting protection of human rights. Similar patterns of attacks against civilians, forced displacement and the use of militias have occurred and are still occurring in other areas of Sudan. In order to break this cycle, it is crucial that respect for human rights is strengthened in Sudan as a whole.

  93.  The FCO report underlines the UK government's commitment to help secure a viable peace agreement between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM). Amnesty International UK would welcome clear commitments with regards to human rights. In particular, greater clarification is needed on what the UK government will do to ensure that the Sudanese government takes concrete steps to cancel emergency laws allowing for incommunicado detentions, end impunity for acts of torture and unfair trials and ensure that human rights are central to any peace process. Amnesty International suggests that the committee presses the government on what action it will take on each of these issues.

  94.  Amnesty International UK acknowledges the role played by the UK government in securing UNSC resolution 1566 which includes an arms embargo on all non-governmental entities in Darfur, including the Janjawid. Despite this resolution, militias armed and supported by the Sudanese government have not been disbanded and continue to enjoy impunity. The embargo should, we believe, be extended to all parties to the conflict, including the government, until safeguards are in place to protect the civilian population. An adequately resourced UN monitoring mechanism, including an expert group which reports regularly to the Security Council and a sanctions committee set up by the UNSC is also required. Amnesty International UK suggests the Committee asks the UK government whether it will be pushing for an extended arms embargo during further UNSC discussions on this issue and urges it to do so.

THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (PP 36-38)

  95.  Eighteen months after the inauguration of the transitional national government in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), major reforms essential to the stability of the country have barely begun or are yet to start.

  96.  The FCO report correctly notes that "progress is slow" in the area of security sector reform and particularly the disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration of ex-combatants. Amnesty International UK would add that progress has also been slow in areas such as the integration of military and police forces, bringing to justice perpetrators of human rights abuses and addressing the urgent needs of the victims of the conflict in the east. All these issues need to be addressed if there is to be long-term stability and peace.

  97.  The FCO report states that: "the only sustainable way to end the cycle of abuse is to bring an end to the conflicts in the region and the prevailing climate of impunity." We believe that impunity is one of the major factors weakening the transition and prospects for peace in the country. This is why Amnesty International UK has called consistently on the DRC government and international donors to place the reconstruction and reform of the justice system among the major priorities of the transition. We note the government's efforts in this regard and ask that it continue pressing for this.

  98.  Amnesty International UK acknowledges the signing in September 2003 of a Good Neighbourly Pact between the governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda. But only recently (25 November 2004) Rwanda threatened to send its armed forces back into the DRC. Such threats serve as a reminder that mistrust remains a reality in the region. Amnesty International UK suggests that the committee asks the government what action it is taking to ensure that the government of Rwanda abides by its agreements and does not contribute to instability by repeatedly threatening to launch military incursions into the DRC.

  99.  As the report points out, insecurity still plagues areas of the Kivu provinces, Katanga, Maniema and Ituri. The slow pace of integration of the army and police forces, for which funding has not yet been secured, is a major contributor to this insecurity. The continuing violence is also underpinned by the exploitation of natural resources and the proliferation of small arms. Amnesty International UK is encouraged by the UK government's support for the arms embargo on the DRC. But the arms embargo remains only partially effective. Amnesty International UK suggests that the Committee asks the government what concrete action it will take to ensure that the reform of the army and police forces is moved forward promptly with adequate funding, and what action it will take to ensure that the monitoring mechanism for the arms embargo is made more effective.

  100.  During the course of the conflict in the east, tens of thousands of women and girls have been victims of systematic rape and sexual assault committed by combatant forces. In addition to the trauma of rape, survivors' rights are further violated. Most women suffering injuries or illnesses caused by rape are denied the medical care they need. Due to prejudice, many women are abandoned by their husbands and excluded by their communities, condemning them and their children to extreme poverty. There is no justice or redress for the crimes they have endured. Mass rape has contributed to the spread of HIV, which is predicted to have a catastrophic future effect on the health of the country. Amnesty International UK welcomes the support the UK government gives to individual projects. However, a more co-ordinated and strategic approach, particularly with regards to healthcare and access to justice, is needed. Amnesty International UK suggests that the Committee asks the government what steps it is taking to encourage the DRC's transitional government to make medical care of rape survivors and reconstruction of the national health care system a priority and to end impunity for such crimes.

RUSSIA (PP 44-47)

  101.  The human rights challenges in Russia cited in the annual report focus on areas that Amnesty International UK would itself wish to highlight, including some areas of progress. In addition to the FCO's list, we would also wish to draw attention to the continued, unconstitutional practice of residence registration (propiska) and its impact on some minorities.

  102.  Amnesty International UK notes that the annual report characterises violence against women as a "major problem" and commends the FCO for raising this issue in its human rights dialogue with the Russian authorities. Too often, gender-based violence is perceived to be a social problem and the exclusive concern of a national government, rather than also as a human rights issue meriting international concern and cooperation. Amnesty International UK therefore hopes that the UK government will continue to raise violence against women in the Russian Federation in its bilateral and multilateral exchanges and, where appropriate, work with Russian authorities in addressing the challenge.

  103.  However, it also draw attention to declining press freedom, stating that current affairs coverage in the country "has begun to resemble Soviet-era models" (p 222) and highlighting the killing, beating and intimidation and prosecution of journalists. Amnesty International UK agrees with this concern and believes that it highlights the importance of looking at the human rights situation throughout the Federation.

  104.  Understandably however, it is Chechnya that receives most of the attention. Over the past twelve months, Amnesty International has noted an increase in bomb attacks in Moscow and the North Caucasus, as well as kidnappings and hostage taking. The abhorrent and calculated action of taking over 1,000 hostages in Beslan, many of them children, the conditions to which they were subjected and the subsequent deliberate killing of some of them are flagrant abuses of human rights without any justification. As one side seeks to justify its abuses and violations by the actions of the other side, the suffering of the victims is apparently utterly ignored, when they should be at centre-stage.

  105.  Russian forces in Chechnya are also responsible for violations of human rights and humanitarian law. The annual report refers to frequent night-time abductions and disappearances, including for ransom, beatings and torture of those detained, extortion, the situation of IDPs in Ingushetia and the continuing, widespread culture of impunity. Amnesty International UK would also draw attention to the increasing persecution of those defending human rights in Chechnya. The reference to impunity is particularly important and the FCO should continue to seek updated details on the numbers, charges and sentences of those prosecuted and convicted for crimes against civilians in Chechnya. The Committee might wish to ask for a progress report on the availability of this information both during oral evidence by the Minister and in next year's annual report.

  106.  An important aspect of the commentary on Chechnya is found in the box on page 46: "[Russia's] policy remains to remove Chechnya as far as possible from the multilateral and bilateral agenda". Given this policy of shielding the situation in Chechnya from international scrutiny, it is important that the FCO continues to provide commentary in its annual report and to raise the matter in bilateral and multilateral fora. Amnesty International UK is pleased to note that human rights was raised by Jack Straw in July 2004, on a number of occasions by Bill Rammell, as well as by officials, but has been concerned at an apparent reluctance at the most senior levels of government to criticise Russia's human rights performance overall. In the "looking ahead" section, the annual report notes the FCO's intention to raise human rights bilaterally, including at ministerial level, as well as by working with the EU. This is essential. Moreover, given the UK's forthcoming presidency of the G8 and EU, the FCO should ensure that human rights in Chechnya are raised at the highest levels, including at summit level meetings. The Committee might also wish for further information on the FCO's strategy to address Russia's policy of shielding Chechnya from international attention.

CHINA (PP 55-57)

  107.  The report is correct to raise serious concerns over human rights in China and to record limited progress in some areas but none in others.

The UK-China Human Rights Dialogue

  108.  China continues to engage in "human rights dialogue" with other countries, although it suspended the dialogue with the USA after the latter proposed a resolution on China at the UN Commission on Human Rights in March 2004.

  109.  The UK-China dialogue remains one of the major channels of discussion on human rights concerns in China. Amnesty International UK is concerned, however, that this process, after 11 rounds of dialogue, is not leading to significant changes on the ground in the country. As the dialogue has continued and proliferated, there has been a growing reluctance among those involved to engage in more public forms of pressure and criticism.

  110.  While Amnesty International UK does not oppose the dialogue process, we believe that it must be backed up by other measures, including strong public criticism when appropriate. The Chinese authorities are adept at the diplomatic game of engaging in dialogue with other states, but at home they continue to refuse to do so with many of their own citizens. These include human rights defenders, many of whom are detained or imprisoned.

EU arms embargo on China

  111.  The EU arms embargo on China, imposed after China's crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in June 1989, was discussed at the EU-China summit held on 8 December 2004. China has been lobbying for the lifting of the embargo and has the ear of some EU states. At the summit, the EU sent a "positive signal" to the Chinese on the arms embargo, but said more work needed to be done first on strengthening the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports (the code of conduct is designed to stop arms exports to countries where they may be used to abuse human rights). Amnesty International UK believes that any decision taken by the EU on the embargo, and any subsequent steps by the EU, must take into account how it will affect the human rights situation, and what message is being sent to human rights defenders in China. China has still to give a full account of what took place in Tiananmen Square.

China's human rights record

  112.  Amnesty International UK continues to oppose the extensive and arbitrary use of the death penalty in China. The authorities keep national statistics on death sentences and executions secret. However, in March 2004, a senior member of the National People's Congress announced that the country executes around 10,000 people per year. In October, the authorities announced an intention to reinstate a Supreme Court review of death penalty cases and to introduce other legal reforms aimed at safeguarding the rights of criminal suspects and defendants. It remains unclear, however, when these measures will be introduced. Amnesty International UK asks the government in what way the UK is pressing the Chinese authorities to reduce the scope of the death penalty, with the eventual aim of its abolition.

  113.  Some legal reforms have been introduced, including new regulations aimed at preventing torture in police custody. An amendment to the Constitution in March 2004 states that "the state respects and protects human rights." However, the failure to introduce necessary institutional reforms severely compromises the enforcement of these measures in practice.

  114.  Political crackdowns targeting specific groups continue, including of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, unofficial Christian groups, and so-called "separatists" and "religious extremists" in Xinjiang and Tibet. The authorities use provisions of the Criminal Law relating to "subversion" and "state secrets" to prosecute peaceful activists and advocates of reform. Amnesty International UK asks the UK government what action it is prepared to take other than that of "raising concern" with regard to these targets.

  115.  Hundreds, possibly thousands, of North Korean asylum-seekers in northeast China continue to be arrested and forcibly returned. China denies North Koreans access to any refugee determination procedures despite evidence that many have a genuine claim to asylum.

  116.  We welcome the withdrawal of legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law prohibiting acts of treason, sedition, secession or subversion in Hong Kong. Concerns are raised, however, over steps taken by the mainland to restrict Hong Kong's freedom to push ahead with constitutional reform. We urge the UK government to continue its representations to China on this issue.

SAUDI ARABIA (PP 65-67)

  117.  In spite of apparent positive steps towards reform in Saudi Arabia, many of the concerns which Amnesty International raised in last year's submission remain. Human rights violations were exacerbated by government "anti-terrorism" policies and acts of violence, some of which the government blamed on al-Qai'da sympathisers. Other areas of concern include the lack of transparency in the justice system, the continued use of capital and corporal punishment, torture with impunity, and discrimination against women, Shia Muslims and non-Muslims.

  118.  The report refers to the Saudi government's acknowledgement of the need for reform, and cites their announcement to hold "partial municipal elections" as a positive development. Amnesty International understands that women will be excluded from these elections, however, despite the fact that the country's election law does not explicitly ban women from taking part. In addition, as the report states, three people arrested in March 2004 that are known for their support for reform are currently on trial, whilst one of the lawyers defending them has also been detained. The report also mentions the beginning of internal debate and the first Saudi human rights conference in October 2003. Amnesty International did request to be invited to the conference, but received no positive response. It has subsequently learnt that the conference was said to have avoided touching on the human rights situation in the country. We suggest that the committee ask the government what concrete steps it believes it can take to press bring home the need for reform to the Saudi authorities.

  119.  This process of reform is much hindered by the continuing discrimination suffered by women and some minority groups. Not only are women being blocked from participating in politics, for example, they are also discriminated against in employment and suffer from very severe restrictions in their freedom of movement. In addition, violence against women in the family is often accompanied by impunity for perpetrators. One of Amnesty International's key demands is for the government of Saudi Arabia to end all discriminatory measures against women in accordance with CEDAW, which it has now signed and ratified. We believe that the UK government must make it clear to the Saudi authorities that the condition of women must improve if it wishes to further its engagement with the international community.

  120.  The decision of the Saudi authorities to hold the trial of the reformists arrested in March in public is a very welcome move. However, their failure to allow organisations like Amnesty International to send delegates to observe the trial cast a shadow over this initiative. As we have stated in previous submissions, we are already concerned by the sheer numbers of people detained by a criminal justice system which lacks the most basic standards and operates in great secrecy. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment of those detained in the name of security and "fighting terrorism" continue to be made and the death penalty is still applied to a wide range of offences. Amnesty International asks that the UK government takes every opportunity to raise these concerns and uses its best efforts to obtain permission for Amnesty International to visit the country.

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (PP 67-70)

  121.  Israel and the Palestinian Authority, like all other governments, are obliged to protect the security of those living under their jurisdiction. However, both Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) fail to balance this obligation with the need to uphold human rights.

  122.  While the report clearly recognizes Israel's failure to respect the human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, it fails to accurately reflect the scope of human rights violations and the massive impact that these have on Palestinian lives. For example, the report fails to mention that over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the last four years and more than 4,000 of their homes have been destroyed. We hope that the committee will press the UK government on what representations it is making to the Israeli government and the PA on human rights violations. In particular, we ask that they call for the deployment of international human rights monitors, to monitor human rights abuses by all sides.

  123.  The report says "we continue to be concerned about civilians casualties during the course of Israeli Defence Forces' incursions into the Occupied Territories, often in response to suicide bombings by Palestinian rejectionist groups". In fact, the biggest and most destructive Israeli army offensives in the past two years have been in the Gaza Strip. However, whereas there have been frequent Palestinian attacks on Israeli forces and on Israeli settlers in the Gaza Strip, as well as qassam mortar attacks from the Gaza Strip into the southern Israeli town of Sderot, there have been no suicide attacks in Israel carried out from Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, with the exception of the suicide attack in Ashdod port early this year. The assertion in the report appears to justify Israel's military offensives, which target or result in death and injury of Palestinians who played no part in such attacks, as well as untold damage in residential areas. For their part, Palestinian armed groups claim to launch attacks, including suicide bombings, in response to Israeli attacks. Neither situation is acceptable and the abuses of one party cannot be used to justify the abuses of the other party. We ask the UK government what steps it has taken to bring its views on this to the attention of the concerned parties.

  124.  We share the concern about house demolitions by Israeli authorities and agree that they constitute collective punishment. This is, as the government is aware, illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which both the UK and Israel are parties. We call on the UK government therefore to urge the Israeli government to establish a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and assess all cases of destruction, confiscation and damage to property by the Israeli army and provide adequate redress to Palestinian victims.

  125.  The report states that "In failing to bring to justice those who assist and train suicide bombers the PA is complicit . . ." Amnesty International UK agrees that it is necessary to put concrete pressure on the PA to take the necessary steps and to spare no efforts to prevent attacks by Palestinian armed groups on Israelis and to investigate each attack and bring to justice those responsible. With regard to Israel, the report fails to address the degree of direct responsibility of the Israeli authorities, whose armed forces have carried out hundreds of extrajudicial executions and unlawful killings of unarmed Palestinians, but have enjoyed impunity for such crimes. While stating that "we remain concerned by the level of accountability of Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territory and the limited progress in deterring, investigating and prosecuting human rights abuses", the report fails to address the gravity of the situation. It refers to two cases where UK citizens have been killed by Israeli security forces, but fails to mention that no Israeli soldier has been charged with or convicted of murder or manslaughter of Palestinians. In the overwhelming majority of cases, Israeli soldiers have not been prosecuted at all and the few who have been prosecuted have been charged with death by negligence. The only one charged with manslaughter is the soldier who killed UK citizen Tom Hurndall. We suggest that the committee ask the UK government if it has made representations to the Israelis and to the Palestinians on the issue of impunity.

  126.  The report states that the Israeli barrier "aims to protect Israelis from suicide bombers and violence from rejectionist groups". While this is indeed Israel's claim, a key purpose of the fence/wall is to encompass most of the Israeli settlements and settlers' roads in the Occupied Territories. The report mentions that the UK government sent information to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and that the UK voted in favour of the UN GA resolution which acknowledged receipt of the ICJ's advisory opinion on the fence/wall. However, the report fails to mention that the UK did not vote in favour of the earlier UN GA resolution of December 2003 which asked the ICJ to examine the matter—a position that Amnesty International UK regretted. The FAC might like to ask the minister to explain the stance that the UK actually took.

  127.  Finally, Amnesty International UK is disappointed in both the fact that the recommendations it makes in the report to the Palestinian Authority are vague and that it fails to make any recommendations at all to the Israeli Government. We hope that the committee will ask the UK government to outline what further steps it intends to take to address the situation of human rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

COLOMBIA (PP 72-75 AND 146-147)

  128.  In July 2003, the UK government hosted the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia. This meeting was intended to identify key human rights problems in the country and bring them to the attention of the international community. In our view, many of the problems identified have yet to be addressed.

  129.  For example, the report commends the Colombian government for their efforts to crack down on collusion between security forces and illegal groups. However, Amnesty International's research has found that paramilitaries continue to benefit from the support and acquiescence of the security forces. Throughout 2004 we have continued to document and receive information of cases of collusion from different parts of the country. Links between the security forces and paramilitaries are not isolated incidents as the Colombian government contends: there is overwhelming evidence pointing to the high-level coordination between the two groups. Amnesty International's position is shared by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, which has repeatedly pointed out the strength of links between paramilitaries and security forces.

  130.  While the report refers to arrests and imprisonment of three army officers for their alleged part in a 1988 paramilitary massacre, Amnesty International has found a repeated failure to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations—both of paramilitaries and senior ranking officers in the security forces. Criminal investigations have been severely hampered by the killing and disappearances of, and threats against, prosecutors and witnesses. In addition, most members of the security forces are investigated through military courts, in breach of UN human rights recommendations, courts which have routinely failed to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations. The report states that the UK government believes that the Colombian government needs to do more to tackle the issues of impunity and collusion. We ask it to set out what discussions it has had, specifically, on these two points with the Colombian government.

  131.  Of the more than 3,000 civilians killings with political motives in 2003, the vast majority were carried out by army-backed paramilitaries. The report refers to a downward trend in human rights violations, with figures given for murder and kidnappings. However, during 2003-04 Amnesty International has documented an increase in the incidence of torture, "disappearances", and arbitrary detention, which are ignored in the report. The organisation has also received increasing reports of extrajudicial killings carried out directly by the security forces. These cases are routinely assumed by the criminal justice system. In particular, the number of mass arrests—particularly of human rights defenders, local community leaders and trade unionists—have increased dramatically. While the statistics refer to the increased captures of paramilitaries, there is no information on how many of these are still detained or under criminal investigation, information which Amnesty International has repeatedly asked the Colombian authorities to provide it with.

  132.  The report refers to President Uribe calling publicly for respect for human rights and civil society, but that this message has not "filtered down to lower levels of the state apparatus". We do not agree that this is the reason for inaction. In fact, the Colombian government has continued to make statements equating the defence of human rights with the promotion of terrorism, while over the past year President Uribe has launched a number of attacks on national and international NGOs. And threats against those at the forefront of human rights work have continued unabated. We urge the UK government to press the Colombian government harder on the need to protect human rights defenders, including trade unionists.

  133.  In Chapter 5 on human rights and armed conflict, the report refers to the negotiations between the government and the paramilitaries on demobilisation. Amnesty International is concerned that this process may grant impunity to those responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The report refers to the new Law on Justice and Reparation, which was withdrawn by the Colombian government after national and international criticism over its failure to guarantee the right of victims to truth, justice and reparation. The government is yet to present a new draft of the bill, but fears continue that any new bill will continue to guarantee impunity for those suspected of abusing human rights. We are also very concerned that illegal combatants who are demobilised as part of this process will not be removed from the conflict but will be "recycled" as "peasant soldiers" or integrated into civilian informer networks.

  134.  The report refers to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights' assessment of Colombia's implementation of the UN recommendations, which is very much in line with our own. The committee might ask the government to outline the steps it intends to take to "impress upon the Colombian government the importance of taking full account of, and acting on, the UN's assessment". In addition, we urge the UK government to request that the Colombian government draw up a national plan of action for full and prompt implementation of the UN recommendations as set out in the 2003 London Declaration. The UK government should use the opportunity of its EU Presidency to insist on the development of an international community mechanism to monitor progress on the implementation of UN human rights recommendations.

Amnesty International UK

December 2004

---

---

1   Baroness Scotland. Written answer, 28 October 2004 - HL Col WA144. Back

2   Ambitions for Britain. Labour's manifesto 2001. Back

3   With the exception of deals brokered to embargoed destinations, or deals involving long-range missiles or torture equipment. Back

4   Sunday Times, "Briton supplies arms to Sudan", 5 September 2004, and Scotsman, "British Arms Dealer defends attempts to supply Sudan", 18 November 2004. Back

5   (Cm 6275, p 10). Back

6   Amnesty International UK notes with concern the fact that avoidance of debate is also a feature at the UN General Assembly, with the body using procedural moves to ensure no action was taken in November 2004 on resolutions on Belarus, Sudan and Zimbabwe. Back

---

Prepared 26 March 2005