House of Commons - Quadripartite Committee

Quadripartite Select Committee Written Evidence

Memorandum from Amnesty International UK

IMPLEMENTATION OF EC TORTURE REGULATION IN THE UK

Further to the quadripartite evidence session with NGOs on 31 January 2006, Amnesty International would like to submit to the committee, an adapted copy of its submission to the DTI Informal Consultation on the EC torture regulation.

BACKGROUND

In 2005, the Department for Trade and Industry initiated an Informal Consultation on Amending the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order ("the Order") to implement provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005) concerning trade in goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ("the Regulation").[54] The regulation, and any resultant changes to UK legislation are due to come into force on 30 July 2006.

1. Introduction

Amnesty International welcomes the introduction of the EC Trade Regulation and also recognises the active leadership that the UK government has shown during the formation of the Regulation. However, Amnesty International has concerns regarding the possible outcomes if the suggestions contained within the "Informal Consultation" document are implemented.

This submission has three substantive sections which examine i) Amnesty International's concerns with the proposals contained in the DTI "Informal Consultation" document; ii) goods not currently controlled within either Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003[55] or Annexes II or III of the EC Trade regulation that may be used for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, torture or other ill-treatment; and iii) Amnesty International's wider concerns with the EC Trade Regulation.

For purposes of brevity this submission will refer to the DTI consultation document as the "Informal Consultation" and to the "EC Trade Regulation" and currently banned equipment such as stun guns, shock batons, leg irons, leg cuffs etc as "torture equipment".

Overall recommendations. The UK government should:

— Provide an explanation of the proposed changes in a statement to parliament and ensure that any new categories are clearly reported in the Quarterly and Annual reports on Strategic Export Controls.

— Work with the other EU member states to urgently seek progress to introduce effective brokering controls.

— Retain the PL5001c5 descriptions within the UK national controls and encourage the European Commission and EU member states to include this equipment description in Annex III of the Trade Regulation.

— Work with other EU Member states to introduce a wider range of MSP (military, security, police) equipment into the EC Trade Regulation control mechanism including "wolf sticks", sjamboks, specially designed hanging ropes and "interrogation equipment".

2. The introduction of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 "concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment[57]

On 3 October 2001, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution[58] urging the Commission to:

"act swiftly to bring forward an appropriate Community instrument banning the promotion, trade and export of police and security equipment whose use is inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading"

and to ensure that this Community instrument would:

"suspend the transfer of police and security equipment whose medical effects are not fully known and of such equipment where its use in practice has revealed a substantial risk of abuse or unwarranted injury."

In December 2002, the European Commission (EC) proposed a Council Trade Regulation (COM(2002) 770) to control, and in some cases prohibit, equipment that has been used for torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The drafting of the Trade Regulation made slow progress and it was not until a Working Party on Trade Questions on the 12 May 2005, that all delegations[59] and the Commission agreed with a compromise proposal submitted by the then Luxembourg Presidency.

The Trade Regulation was then ratified by all EU member states, and will come into operation on 30 July 2006. The Trade Regulation requires all member states to:

(a) ban the trade in goods which "have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment" or "for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Annex II); and

(b) introduce EC wide export controls on a limited range of goods that "could be used for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Annex III).

Amnesty International welcomes the introduction of the EC Trade Regulation and also recognises the active leadership that the UK government has shown during the formation of the Regulation.

However, Amnesty International has concerns regarding the possible outcomes if some of the suggestions outlined within the "Informal Consultation" document are implemented.

3. Amnesty International concerns with proposals contained in the DTI "Informal Consultation" document

The EC Trade Regulation specifically states that Member States can adopt, or maintain stricter prohibitions on specific goods than that contained in the Trade Regulation itself. Article 7 of the Regulation states that:

"Notwithstanding the provision in Article 5 and 6. a Member State may adopt or maintain a prohibition on the export and import of leg irons, gang chains and portable electric shock devices."

Given that Member States are explicitly authorised to maintain stricter prohibitions than contained in the EC Trade Regulation, Amnesty International urges the UK government to ensure that the strict export controls introduced in July 1997 and brokering controls implemented in April 2004 are retained.

(a) UK extra-territorial controls on the brokering of "torture equipment"

A DTI briefing document, dated 12 September 2005, entitled "details of the new EC Trade Regulation on products used for capital punishment and torture"[60] states that:

Maintaining a national ban, to all destinations, on the export of leg irons gang-chains and portable electric shock devices;

Maintaining a national export licensing requirement, to all destinations, for handcuffs which have an overall dimension, measured from outside edge of one cuff to the outside edge of another cuff, exceeding 240mm and up to 280mm."

Amnesty International is concerned that the UK government is only "considering" adopting these options—which have been the stated policy of the Labour Government since July 1997. Amnesty International would urge the UK government to maintain the "national ban, to all destinations, on the export of leg irons, gang-chains and portable electric shock devices."

The Informal Consultation contains a section entitled "Removal of national control where goods controlled by the Regulation" which states that:

Electric shock belts	PL5001c3
Leg-irons, gang-chains, shackles and individual cuffs or shackle bracelets	PL5001c1, 2, 4 and 5
Portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self protectionby the administration of an electric shock	PL5001g
Portable anti-riot devices for administering an incapacitating substance	PL5001d."

In preparation for this submission, Amnesty International has raised a number of concerns with DTI officials. Firstly, that if these rating categories are removed from Schedule 1 the UK government will, as the legislation currently stands, lose the ability to implement the extra-territoriality controls on the brokering of such equipment, by British citizens outside the UK and all persons within the UK.

DTI officials have informed Amnesty International that the department was aware of this problem and that the Trade in Goods (Control) Order 2003[62] and Trade in Controlled Goods (Embargoed destinations) Order 2004[63] legislation would need to be amended to enable the brokering controls on such equipment to remain operational.

However, as the government has yet to publish details of these changes, Amnesty International remains concerned that the introduction of the EC Trade Regulation will see the weakening of the UK's current extra-territorial prohibitions on the brokering, by UK citizens, of "torture equipment".

Recommendation: Amnesty International calls on the UK Government to ensure that when introducing provisions to meet its obligations contained in the EC Trade Regulation, that it does not weaken the existing controls on the "acquisition, purchase, possession, manufacture, sale and transfer"[64] and brokering of "torture equipment".

(b) Export controls on "Individual cuffs having an internal perimeter dimension exceeding 165mm when the ratchet is engaged at the last notch entering the locking mechanism and shackles made therewith"

Amnesty International is also concerned that if the government implements the recommendations contained in the Informal Consultation document that the UK will lose the export controls on "oversized" handcuffs or components for such "oversized" or "jumbo" handcuffs.

The EC Trade Regulation only contains the following description for goods contained within the heading:

"1.2. Leg-irons, gang-chains, shackles and individual cuffs or shackle bracelets

Note:

The EC Trade Regulation text does not include the more detailed description that is currently contained in the PL5001c5 category which controls the licensing of:

"Individual cuffs having an internal perimeter dimension exceeding 165mm when the ratchet is engaged at the last notch entering the locking mechanism and shackles made therewith."

Neither the Informal Consultation document nor the 12 September 2005, DTI briefing document [details of the new EC Trade Regulation on products used for capital punishment and torture][65] have mentioned that this control text will be added to the "Trade Control" legislation.

Unless the more descriptive text, currently contained within PL5001c5, is maintained the statement made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister on 11 October 2005, will cease to be the case.

"Dr. Howells:

This regulation includes provisions governing the transfer of handcuffs. The regulation is consistent with the UK's current policy on the export of over-sized handcuffs

Amnesty International has serious concerns that by implementing the suggestions contained in the Informal Consultation document that the government will weaken UK export controls to the less effective controls contained in the EC Trade Regulation.

Recommendation: The UK government should ensure that the stricter controls, as currently contained in PL5001 c5, are maintained and should urge other EU Member States to support the introduction of such controls into the EC Trade Regulation.

(c) Reporting to Parliament

Even if the PL5001 categories that are suggested for removal from Schedule 1 are added to the list of restricted goods categories in the "Trade Control" legislation, Amnesty International has concerns regarding how the government will provide information of export licence applications authorised (or refused) for such equipment to Parliament and for the Annual (or Quarterly) reports on Strategic Export Controls.

Recommendation: The government should provide an explanation of the proposed changes in a statement to parliament and ensure that any new categories are clearly reported in the Quarterly and Annual reports on Strategic Export Controls.

4. Goods not currently controlled within either Schedule 1 or Annexes II or III of the EC Trade Regulation that may be used for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, torture or other ill-treatment

Amnesty International has raised concerns with both the UK government and the European Commission regarding MSP (military, security, police) equipment that may be used for cruel, inhuman or degrading, torture or other ill-treatment, but which are not currently controlled under the UK's Schedule 1 or will not be subject to export control when the EC Trade Regulation comes into operation.

The following examples provide details of some of the equipment that Amnesty International believes should be controlled by the EC Trade Regulation. However, Amnesty International has also documented cases of torture and ill-treatment that have been carried out using a wide range of common implements such as pliers, crowbars and electric cables.

Amnesty International recognises that extending export controls to such commonly available products would be impractical but believes that the UK government should:

— Ensure that NGOs working to combat torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading (CID) treatment can submit evidence to the agencies responsible for implementing the EC Trade Regulation when they have documented patterns of use of new types of equipment being used for torture and CID.

— Consider the introduction of a "catch-all" clause for a wider range of equipment where the final end-user has been documented as using torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

(a) Stun batons and guns that are designed to operate below the 10,000 volt criteria included in the EC Trade Regulation

The existing Schedule 1 category PL5001g states that export controls exist on:

"Portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self protection by the administration of an electric shock"

This category does not indicate any voltage or current level. Instead it provides a broader description of the function of an electro-shock device.

The EC Trade Regulation contains the following descriptive text in relation to the electric-shock devices that must be controlled:

"2.1. Portable electric shock devices, including but not limited to, electric shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns having a no-load voltage exceeding 10,000 V."

Thus the export controls will not apply to any electro-shock devices or stun weapons that have a "no-load voltage" below 10,000 volts.

Amnesty International is concerned that if the UK government removes the PL5001.g category and replaces it with the more restricted definition contained in the EC Trade Regulation that some electro-shock devices will cease to be controlled. There are a range of electro-shock devices that have been designed to operate at a voltage level below 10,000 volts.

The photograph below [not printed] shows a PRO-TEC Personal Protector which is described as having an operating voltage of 400V. The current UK controls would catch such devices the EC Trade Regulation controls will not.

Photo caption: PRO-TEC Personal Protector (PT-07). High current electrical shock! The PRO-TEC Personal Protector provides you round-the-clock protection anytime, anywhere. It provides fast and powerful protection. When activated, it releases a strong electric current—400V/76A—in 0.01 seconds. It comes with two 5mm electric pins which can penetrate through clothing and deliver a sharp current of energy to stun burglars or wild animals, thereby giving users an opportunity to escape. Takes only 0.5 seconds to recharge and it is ready for use again. PT-07 PRO-TEC Personal Protector $28.00. Source: Company website. Copyright (unknown).[67]

(b) Portable electric shock devices, including but not limited to, electric shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns having a no-load voltage exceeding 10,000v

The Informal Consultation document states that:

"Further consideration will also need to be given on whether to maintain a national control on the export to all destinations of electric shock dart guns having a no-load voltage exceeding 10,000v or below."

Amnesty International recognises that there may be some circumstances where export licences may be required. For example, the return under warranty, of broken or faulty Tasers in use by the UK police firearms officers, to the manufacturer in the USA. Apart from such exceptional circumstance, Amnesty International would urge the UK government to maintain the national controls on the export to "all destinations".

(c) Handcuffs as components for Belly chains.

Neither Schedule 1 nor Annex III of the EC Trade Regulation require export controls on "ordinary handcuffs". Amnesty International remains concerned that without effective export controls on such goods, handcuffs can be exported from the UK, and other EU Member States, for incorporation into metal restraints that would not be authorised for direct export.

For example, the American company, Discount Handcuff Warehouse advertises the "Hiatts Model 7000FR Belly Chain With Handcuffs Linked" and claims that the:

Photograph [not printed] with caption: Discount Handcuff Warehouse advertises the "Hiatts Model 7000FR Belly Chain With Handcuffs Linked". Source: Discount Handcuff Warehouse (USA). Copyright: Unknown.

According to the company, the Model 2010 handcuffs are manufactured in the UK by Hiatt & Co Ltd in Birmingham.[69] As these handcuffs are classed as "ordinary handcuffs" licence approval is not required for exports, to any destination. Because there is no requirement for export licence applications, the UK government does not currently exercise any control over the incorporation of these "ordinary handcuffs" into "belly chains" or other such shackle restraints, and any subsequent re-export from the US to any country or countries under current EU embargo.

The photograph below [not printed] was taken in Guantanamo Bay on 23 August 2004 and shows a range of restraints including "ordinary handcuffs" attached to a range of shackle chains or belly chains.

Photo caption: Leg irons and hand cuffs hang on a board at Camp Delta at Guantanamo Naval Base 23 August, 2004 in Guantanamo, Cuba. On 24 August, preliminary hearings will begin for four suspected Al Qaeda associates charged by the US with war crimes as they appear before a commission of five military officers. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images). Source: Getty Images.

On 9 September 2005, the Guardian newspaper reported a demonstration outside Hiatt & Co Ltd facilities in Birmingham. The article reported how some of the "cuffs" used at Guanta«namo, which bind hands with a restraining device strapped around the body, bore the name Hiatt and the words "Made in England". According to Moazzam Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee:

"When I was in Guanta«namo Bay, one of the things I pointed out to my lawyer was how it was ironic that these shackles were made in England, just like me and him. It was very bizarre. Those shackles would often cut into my arms and legs and make me bleed. It was those very same shackles I saw being used by American soldiers in Bagram airbase to hang a prisoner from the ceiling. It said 'Made in England' on there too. If these cuffs are used to shackle people up to the tops of ceilings or cages and then [those people are] beaten, it calls into question what those shackles are actually being used for."

Mr Begg described how the handcuffs were attached to a "three-piece suit" and how:

Amnesty International remains concerned that the lack of export controls on "ordinary handcuffs" within both UK controls and the EC Trade Regulation will mean that handcuffs manufactured in Britain, or other EU countries, will continue to be incorporated into "belly chains" or other restraints.

(d) Wall cuffs

The photographs below [not printed] show a single handcuff linked by chain to a bolt type fixing which fixes straight into a wall. Neither current UK controls, nor the EC Trade Regulation will require export authorisation for such goods.

Photo caption: Wall Handcuff. BKS-1 Prikol single handcuff.[71] Source. NPO (Russia). Copyright: Unknown.

Photo caption: Wall cuff supplied from Polish company Eltraf to school students taking part in After School Arms Club, Dispatches programme broadcast on Channel 4, 3 April 2006. Copyright: Robin Ballantyne, Omega Research Foundation.

(e) "Steel Sting sticks" or "wolf sticks"

The photographs below [not printed] show one of the spiked batons, described by the manufacturer as a "Steel stings stick" and a photograph taken of the use of a "nailed baton" by anti-riot police in Tibet in 1999.

Photo caption: This nailed baton is used by anti-riot police in Lhasa (picture brought back by a westerner, on 1 October 1999, 50th birthday of PRC).[72] Copyright: Unknown.

Photo caption: Steel sting stick or wolf stick supplied by Chinese company to school students taking part in After School Arms Club, Dispatches programme broadcast on Channel 4, 3 April 2006. Copyright: Robin Ballantyne, Omega Research Foundation.

A February 2002, account from Falun Gong members, details how Chinese police officers threatened to use such equipment at Wanyaoshan Detention Centre.

The photograph [not printed] shows such a baton that according to a Falun Gong website is one of the torture instruments used in China's prisons and forced labor camps to inflict excruciating pain on Falun Gong practitioners. Source: Falun Gong website.[74] Copyright: Unknown.

In September 2003, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture informed the Government that he had received information on the following individual cases including the following case from Nepal where the police allegedly lathi-charged a demonstration and:

The 1979 UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that police officers and others may use force "only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty". It is difficult to see how such "spiked" or "nailed" batons would meet this requirement.

Amnesty International is concerned that the current UK export controls do not appear to have any control on the export of such "straight" spiked batons or truncheons and the EC Trade Regulation Annexes do not mention such goods.

Recommendation: The UK government should introduce export controls on the such "police" or "security" equipment, and work with all EU Member States to ensure that such goods are added to the EC Trade Regulation annexes.

(f) Sjamboks

The current UK export controls do not appear to have any control on the export of sjamboks and the EC Trade Regulation Annexes do not mention such goods.

According to the US supplier, Elite Tactical Sources Inc (USA):

Photographs [not printed] with captions: Elite Tactical Sources Sjambok[77] and Cold Steel 95SMB Black Sjambok.[78]

The sjambok was infamous for its use during the Apartheid era in South Africa however, Amnesty International's "Policing to protect human rights" report, published in 2002, provides examples of how sjamboks continue to used to inflict ill-treatment and torture.

The report provides details of how sjamboks are used in Namibia and Zambia.

— In February 2000, a 25-year-old farmer, Kamungwe Ngondo, was arrested by paramilitary police in northern Namibia for failing to present an identity document on request. He was held at the paramilitary police base for two weeks and allegedly sjambokked (whipped) repeatedly.

— Oscar Luphalezwi, a former senior policeman with more than 24 years' experience, Namibia. He has over 50 scars on his neck and back from the sjamboks (whips) that were used to beat him following his arrest in August 1999.

— Detainees show signs of severe beatings, Zambia, November 2000. Four suspects were brought before a Magistrate's Court in Lusaka to face charges of aggravated robbery and had visible marks of beatings on their bodies. They said they had been repeatedly beaten with sjamboks (whips) while held without charge in police custody for two weeks.

Recommendation: That the UK government introduce export controls on such "police" equipment and to work with all EU Member States to ensure that such controls are added to the EC Trade Regulation.

(g) Interrogation equipment

The EC Trade Regulation does not have any reference to specially designed "Interrogation equipment". When companies claiming to act on behalf of foreign governments are requesting equipment described as "interrogation foot heaters" the lack of controls on the provision of such equipment raises serious concerns.

In October 2004, a Bangladesh import/export agent posted a request on a tender website stating that they were looking for "Intelligence/Security Equipment for Police". Amongst the equipment required were the following:

18) Interrogation Foot Heater (Digital Control)

19) Interrogation Chair with Accessories

20) Interrogation Hanger ( Remote Control).[80]

The tender specified that the Interrogation Foot Heater should be capable of reaching temperatures up to 200 degrees Celsius.

In an earlier tender request the company had claimed to be:

In December 2004, Bangladesh newspapers reported that:

Recommendation: That the UK government should work with other EU Member States to identify the types of interrogation equipment that should be controlled within the EC Trade Regulation.

(h) Hanging Ropes

The EC Trade Regulation introduces a prohibition on the export of most types of death penalty equipment. However, despite representations from Amnesty International the Regulation does not introduce export controls for "specially designed hanging ropes" Some Member States apparently argued that it would be impossible to introduce such controls as this would catch the whole range of "ordinary" ropes.

Little is written about the subject but it is clear that there is a market for specially designed hanging ropes.

In August 2004, a newspaper article identified that Central Jail at Buxar, a district town 100 km from Patna, India was "probably the only place in the country where the hanging rope is made" and that the prison made three types of rope—tent rope, handcuff rope and hanging rope. The hanging rope is a "special Manilla rope which is supplied to other states on requisition for Rs 182 a kilo (about six ft)" and uses the "J-34 variety of cotton for making hanging rope."[83]

In June 1999, the Daily Record reported how, when three men were hung in Trinidad & Tobago that:

using rope specially imported from Britain

In Sri Lanka, appeals for the resumption of executions increased during 2000, amid a rise in crime in the country.[85] In November 2000 the government finally announced that it would be putting into practice the decision to execute taken in 1999, but nobody was executed. In 2003 the Sri Lankan parliament debated reintroducing executions, but no vote was taken. In September 2003 the Interior Minister assured a delegation of European parliamentarians that the government had no plans to resume executions.

Against this background Amnesty International was very concerned to find that in February 2001 a Sri Lanka company had sent a request for "Noose (rope) to be used in the gallows" to an EU-based tenders website.[86]

It is not known which, if any, European company responded to this request but it is clear that there are several countries attempting to purchase ropes specifically designed for use in executions.

5. Amnesty International's wider concerns with the EC Trade Regulation which the UK government should raise with the European Commission and other EU member states.

Whilst, the announcement of the EC Trade Regulation was welcomed by human rights organisations the Regulation contains several weaknesses, which continue to raise concerns. These include:

(a) Brokering by persons, based within the EU, where goods do not enter EU territory

The EC Trade Regulation does not control the brokering of "torture equipment". The EC argued that the Trade Regulation does not have the legal competency to control such activities. This means that it remains legal for companies and brokers within the EU to arrange, or facilitate, the trafficking and brokering of such "torture equipment" from manufacturers outside the EU to destinations where torture with such devices is commonly reported.

Amnesty International has serious concerns regarding the "loopholes" that this omission leaves within European Union controls on the trade in "torture equipment".

One suggestion to control such brokering activity is that "torture equipment" could be added to the controls that will be introduced by means of the EU Common Position on Brokering.

Recommendation: Amnesty International calls on the UK government to work with the other EU member states to urgently seek progress to introduce effective brokering controls.

(b) Intra-EU transfers

The EC Trade Regulation does not control Intra-EU transfers of such equipment. The Commission has argued that all EU Member States have legislation banning torture and cruel, inhuman & degrading treatment. However, there have been incidents of torture and ill-treatment using electro-shock batons within EU member state countries and concerns remain that unscrupulous dealers will exploit any differences in how EU Member States implement the Trade Regulation.

In March 2004, Amnesty International raised concerns over the ill-treatment of Roma citizens by police officers in Eastern Slovakia. Amnesty reported how:

prodded with electric batons

Amnesty International has also documented ill-treatment using "electric shocks" within other EU Member states including:

electric shocks

As well as prospective EU member states such as:

prodded with an electric baton

Amnesty International remains concerned at the cases of ill-treatment document using "electric shock" devices within EU, or prospective EU, Member states.

Recommendation: that export controls, and reporting, on such equipment should be extended to cover intra-EU trade.

(c) Leg irons

The final draft of the EC Trade Regulation had weakened the range of equipment both prohibited or controlled. For example, the Trade Regulation has moved Leg "irons" from Annex II (prohibited) to Annex III (controlled). This would appear to contradict the UN Minimum Standards as outlined on page 6 of the Trade Regulation.

chains and irons shall not be used as restraints

Even though the EC Trade regulation acknowledges that "irons" should not be used as restraints the trade in such goods will only be controlled not prohibited.

In addition, the definition of "larger cuffs" in Annex III of the Trade Regulation does not contain the "internal perimeter" definition as currently contained in PL5001 c5.

"Individual cuffs having an internal perimeter dimension exceeding 165mm when the ratchet is engaged at the last notch entering the locking mechanism and shackles made therewith."

Therefore, presumably, such goods will not be subject to controls under the EC Trade Regulation. Amnesty International has consistently, over the past 15 years, highlighted cases that have shown that without export controls that contain explicit, and detailed, descriptions, that manufacturers and suppliers will sidestep controls by exporting larger cuffs, without the chains, and the chains have then been attached in third countries.

Recommendation: Amnesty International calls on the UK government to clarify whether the controls contained in the EC Trade Regulation contradicts UK support for Article 33 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in relation to the use, and export, of leg irons or leg cuffs.

Recommendation: Amnesty International call on the UK government to retain the PL5001c.5 description within the UK national controls and encourage the European Commission and EU member states to include such extended descriptions in Annex III of the Trade Regulation.

(d) Transit

The EC Trade Regulation states that an export authorisation for goods listed in Annex III [Control list] will not be required where:

"The goods only pass through the customs territory of the Community, that is those which are not assigned a customs-approved treatment or use, other than the external transit procedure within Article 91 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, including storage of non-community goods in a free zone of control type 1 or a free warehouse;"

Thus it would appear that no export authorisations, or controls, will be required—even if companies or agencies, based outside the EU, that are known to trade in "torture equipment" are discovered to be sending equipment "in-transit" through such facilities within the EC.

Amnesty International has previously raised concerns regarding the lack of controls on MSP (military, security, police) equipment in transit through EU member states. For example:

"Violating EU Code Export Criteria

Given the current concern within EU member states about the rendition of foreign national through EC airspace en-route to third countries where they are reportedly tortured or ill-treated it seems a serious omission that that such concerns have not been raised about the transit of "torture equipment" through EC facilities.

Amnesty International is also concerned that the lack of such controls may be in breach of EU Member States obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

(e) Technical Assistance

The EC Trade Regulation doesn't control technical assistance whereby person(s) supply such assistance once they have travelled outside the EC territory. Such controls on person(s) are probably outside the competency of the EC Trade Regulation powers and therefore Member States should examine how their national legislation can meet their obligations to prevent such transfers.

March 2006

Mr Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on the export of over-sized handcuffs; to which countries over-sized handcuffs are not allowed to be exported; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.[15515]

24/10/2004

Subject Heading: [LK]: Noose (rope) to be used in the gallows. Category: Security & Protection Products. Preferred Region: Worldwide.

Trade Lead Message: A supplier or a manufacturer of Noose (Rope) to be used in the . . .

Amnesty International 2004.

54 www.dti.gov.uk/export.control/notices/2005/notice1805.htm Back

55 http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control/pdfs/militarylist20040501.pdf Back

56 Hansard 28 July 1997: Column 66. Back

57 Available at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l-200/l-20020050730en00010019.pdf Back

58 OJ C 87E, 11.4.2002, p 136. Back

59 It was reported that the Danish, French, Polish and United Kingdom delegations have entered Parliamentary scrutiny reservations, which are expected to be lifted before the Council meeting during which the Regulation will be formally adopted. Back

60 http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control/notices/2005/notice1405.htm Back

61 http://www.dti.gov.uk/export.control/pdfs/controllist20040930.pdf Back