Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Third Report

4   Terrorism

Diplomatic assurances

57. The Government has signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) governing the deportation of individuals to Jordan, Libya and Lebanon as part of its counter-terrorism policy. Through an exchange of letters it has also put in place similar, but less codified arrangements with Algeria. Under the MOUs, individuals in the United Kingdom may be deported to these countries if the Government believes they present a national security threat and there is insufficient evidence to bring a successful criminal prosecution in the courts. The Report asserts that "the MOUs take full account of our international human rights obligations" and that the Government "will not deport an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing they are at real risk of torture."[72]

58. The FCO Report emphasises that "torture has no place in the 21st century. It is one of the most abhorrent violations of human rights and human dignity. Its prohibition is absolute."[73] Yet Manfred Nowak, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, has said that "the plan of the United Kingdom to request diplomatic assurances for the purpose of expelling persons in spite of a risk of torture reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent" international obligations.[74]

59. Along similar lines, article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment." In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in Chahal v. UK that, when assessing whether the deportation of an individual who may pose a terrorist threat would breach article 3, states cannot take national security concerns into account. [75]

60. The Government has since intervened to support The Netherlands in the case of Ramzy v. The Netherlands, a case concerning the deportation of an individual to Algeria which is currently before the ECtHR. The Government is arguing that there should be some balancing test between the risk of torture and the risk to national security in deportation cases.[76] Again, the Government's position has been strongly criticised by both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as an attempt to water down the laws on torture.[77] Our colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights have similarly registered their strong concerns.[78]

61. In evidence to us, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were critical of MOUs. Kate Allen from Amnesty said that "doing deals over individuals was undermining the work of bona fide NGOs."[79] The Government is depending on these NGOs to carry out the independent monitoring of the treatment of those deported, but Ms Allen said that they "will not go anywhere near the job. In Libya, the NGO that has signed up to do it is called the Gaddafi foundation, which I think gives an indication of how independent from the Government it is."[80]

62. Ian McCartney defended the Government's policy on MOUs when he appeared before us:

    Our policy is absolutely consistent with our values and our obligations. It not only ensures that we meet our international obligations, it provides a platform for engagement, which is important for capacity-building work on human rights issues. The policy cannot be seen on its own. It is not about watering down our values; it is about trying to ensure the best guarantee of our own security, while at the same time being able to engage with countries about certainty on human rights and values.[81]

He went on to say that "The balance must be one where we deport people with assurances, but where the assurances are worth the paper that they are written on."[82] We are grateful to the Minister for subsequently providing us with a full description of the arrangements in place with Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon and Libya.[83]

63. As we noted above, the agreement with Algeria rests on an exchange of letters and is therefore less formal than those based on memoranda of understanding. The key difference in the case of Algeria is that there is no monitoring body to oversee the treatment of those returned. Considerable concern has been expressed about the fate of those sent from the United Kingdom to Algeria under this arrangement.

64. In late January, the British government deported two Algerian men to Algeria. They are known as "Q" and "K" and had previously been held as terror suspects in the UK. They were arrested by the DRS Algerian Security Services upon their return. Amnesty International wrote on 29 January that "both men appear to have been taken to a military barracks in central Algiers, part of which is used as a secret detention centre." Amnesty's UK Director, Kate Allen, has said that "People are still being held in secret and tortured by Algeria's feared military police, the DRS. These officials operate beyond the control of the civilian authorities."[84]

65. The Minister provided us with a full statement on the six Algerians deported so far.

    Two Algerians, 'I' and 'V', were deported in June 2006 following withdrawal of their appeals against deportation from the UK. They were detained and interviewed on arrival in Algeria. They were released after 5 days and 6 days in detention respectively. On release they were reunited with their families.

    Between 20 and 27 January 2007 a further four Algerians were deported to Algeria after either withdrawing or waiving their appeals against deportation. They were known as 'K', 'H' and 'P'. The fourth man was formerly known as 'Q'; he recently waived his right to anonymity and is now known as Mr Dendani.

    Prior to removal, each individual was provided with the contact details of the British Embassy in Algiers and it was explained that they or a representative could maintain contact with the Embassy following their return. British Embassy officials have been in and remain in close contact with the Algerian authorities regarding all four deportees. Only one individual, 'H', specifically requested contact arrangements. These were established before 'H' left the UK. The British Embassy in Algiers has been in touch with H's family since 'H' returned.

    The Algerian authorities have told us that 'K' was detained on 24 January 2007 and released without charge on 4 February. 'P' was detained on 27 January 2007 and released without charge on 30 January. Amnesty International reported on 8 February that 'K' had rejoined his family and had not reported being subject to any ill-treatment during his detention. Mr Dendani was detained on 25 January 2007 and subsequently brought before a court. He has been charged with offences under Article 87 of the Algerian Criminal Code, (membership of an armed terrorist group active abroad) and under Article 249 (assumption of the name of a third party).

    'H' was detained on 31 January 2007 and brought before a court on 5 February 2007. He has been charged with offences under Article 87 of the Algerian Criminal Code (membership of an armed terrorist group active abroad). He has had contact with his family since being charged and it is the Government's understanding that he is being held in a civilian prison. He has had access to an Algerian lawyer. The British Government will continue to monitor the cases of 'Q' and 'H' closely.

    All four men were either released or charged before the 12 day detention period, provided for in Article 51 of the Algerian Criminal Code, had expired. All were able to contact their families during that initial period of detention.[85]

66. Asked to assess the record of the MOU with Libya to date, the FCO told us that "Since the MOU's first test in a court of law, during the hearing of an appeal against deportation by two Libyans currently held in the UK, concluded only on 10 November, it is too soon to assess fully how well it is working."[86]

67. We will continue to monitor the situation with regard to the Memoranda of Understanding with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon, and the assurances received from Algeria.


68. One concern expressed by those critical of the use of Memoranda of Understanding is that individuals against whom no evidence can be found in the United Kingdom might be deported to countries where they will be tortured or ill treated until they confess. In our Report on the FCO's 2005 human rights report, we asked the FCO to:

The Government responded:

    The Government, including the intelligence and security agencies, never uses torture for any purpose, including to obtain information. Nor would we instigate others to do so. Our rejection of the use of torture is well known by our liaison partners. Where we are helping other countries to develop their own counter-terrorism capability, we ensure our training or other assistance promotes human rights compliance.

    The provenance of intelligence received from foreign services is often obscured. Where it is clear that it has been obtained from individuals in detention, such intelligence is treated with great care. But the prime purpose for which we need intelligence on counter-terrorism targets is to avert threats to British citizens' lives. Where there is reliable intelligence bearing directly on such threats, it would be irresponsible to reject it out of hand.

    We welcome the clarity that the House of Lords' judgement on 8 December [2005] has brought to this important and difficult issue. The Government has been consistent in condemning torture and it has never been our intention to present to Court evidence, which we have grounds to believe may have been obtained by torture.

This response was silent on our request for the Government to encourage a public debate.

69. We therefore asked the Minister what would happen if the Government were given information concerning the security of this country knowing that it had been obtained by methods involving torture. His reply was remarkably frank:

    If we received information about a situation in which our civilians could be put at risk, we would have an obligation to take into account the information that had been passed to us. I will be blunt: these are difficult issues. I may or may not be the Minister who has to deal with them, but if I were and I received information from whatever source that led me to a risk assessment that death and injury might result, in this or any other country, I would be extremely irresponsible if I did not act on it; so I would act on it.[88]

70. We note that in the latest round of the UK/Russia human rights dialogue, the Russian side raised concerns about the use in the United Kingdom of evidence obtained under torture.[89] It may be that the Government's frankness about its position on this point exposes it to criticism not only from human rights groups, but also from those whose own position on the issue might be more open to criticism, if only it were known. For our part, we recognise the very real dilemma so succinctly described by the Minister. Indeed, we have referred to it extensively in previous Reports.[90]

71. We recommend that the Government include a section exploring the ethical dilemmas on the use of evidence and information derived from torture in the Annual Human Rights Report 2007.

Extraordinary or Irregular Rendition

72. Rendition is not defined in law, but as the FCO Report states, it is used "to describe informal transfers of individuals in a wide range of circumstances, including the transfer of terrorist suspects between countries." Extraordinary rendition again, according to the FCO Report, has no legal meaning, but is used to describe renditions "where it is alleged that there is a risk of torture or mistreatment." The Report states that "we do not use rendition to bring terrorist suspects to face legal proceedings in the UK." [91] Last September, President Bush announced that the CIA had operated a network of secret detention centres, to which alleged terrorists had been taken against their will.[92]

73. Our House of Commons colleague, Andrew Tyrie MP, wrote to us pointing out the Government's condemnation of the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, and asking,

    Given that people who are subject to renditions have even fewer rights than people at Guantánamo, and given that individuals who have been subject to extraordinary rendition claim that they have tortured during their detention, why has the Foreign Office not condemned rendition, extraordinary rendition and secret detention in the way that it has condemned Guantánamo?[93]

However, the Government argues that rendition by other states is not unlawful per se; this will depend on the specific facts of each individual case.[94]

74. Our conclusions on the US detention facility at Guantánamo were set out in our Report, Visit to Guantánamo Bay, published in January 2007.[95] The Government's response was published on 23rd March.[96]

75. The European Parliament established a temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners. The FCO Report, published in October 2006, stated "we remain ready to assist the committee as and when required." However, in its draft report, which was considered by the European Parliament in February, the committee "deplore[d] the manner in which the UK Government, as represented by its Minister for Europe, cooperated with the Temporary Committee."[97] Although the final version of the report significantly toned down its criticism of the Government, Mr Tyrie repeated the allegations of a lack of cooperation. When we raised this with the Minister, he asserted that the Government had "cooperated fully" with the committee. He continued,

    At the end, for all the huffing and puffing—if I can put it that way—about non-co-operation, the truth of the matter is that when it went through all the evidence, it could find no new evidence whatever in respect of the United Kingdom. That was the bottom line when it came to it.[98]

76. On 20 January 2006, the then Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, summarised the results of a search of relevant files stretching back to 1997. The search was a response to allegations that the United Kingdom's territory or airspace might have been used for rendition operations. The search found just four cases of rendition requests by the US, all in 1998. Two were accepted; two were rejected. "There was no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or its overseas territories since 1998."[99] However, in its written evidence, Amnesty International claims that the Government "failed to adequately investigate" this issue.[100]

77. Providing follow-up information after its evidence session, Amnesty International said it has,

    called on the UK government to ask the US government to declare whether or not it has used UK airports, airspace or US military airbases on UK soil for the purposes of 'rendition' since 1998, with or without the approval of the UK authorities. This would include transporting detainees from, to or through UK airspace, as well as servicing planes about to embark on, or returning from, a 'rendition' mission.[101]

Amnesty claims to have evidence that US government aircraft used in renditions have refuelled at British airports. This claim is backed by the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on rendition, which documented CIA flights using Prestwick Airport to refuel immediately before or after being used on an alleged rendition.

78. Amnesty does not allege that those aircraft were carrying detainees at the time. This is consistent with what we have heard when we have raised rendition with senior officials in the US administration. They have told us that the aircraft alleged to have been used for renditions are also used for transporting CIA personnel, evidence (such as computer hard drives) found in theatre and other sensitive materials. However, it is arguable that refuelling an aircraft immediately before or after its use in a rendition amounts to facilitating rendition.

79. The Intelligence and Security Committee is known to have been carrying out an inquiry into rendition.[102] Because that Committee operates within the ring of secrecy, we do not know whether it has asked the Government to clarify its policy on permitting US aircraft en route to or from a rendition to refuel at British airports. We await with interest as much of its report as the Government agrees to publish.

80. We recommend that the Government ask the United States administration to confirm whether aircraft used in rendition operations have called at airfields in the United Kingdom or in the Overseas Territories en route to or from a rendition and that it make a clear statement of its policy on this practice.


81. The FCO Report argues that "it will take time to build a culture of respect for human rights, but progress is being made."[103] It acknowledges that security "continues to be a serious challenge."[104] However, it does not illustrate the scale of the rise in violence since the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra in February 2006 (e.g. attacks against civilians were four times higher in October 2006, the month of the Report's publication, than in January 2006).[105] In its written evidence, Human Rights Watch claims that the Report "paints a wildly optimistic view of the human rights situation in Iraq", suggesting that the United Kingdom and the US are "propping up a government that is deeply implicated in escalating sectarian violence, massacres and torture."[106]

82. This violence affects all sections of Iraqi society. The Jubilee Campaign, an interdenominational Christian human rights organisation, wrote to us about the plight of the Iraqi ChaldoAssyrian community, an ancient Christian group which has lived in the Nineveh area and elsewhere in Iraq for centuries, under a succession of Muslim and secular governments. The Campaign pointed out that in the last 3 years, Iraqi Christians have come under great pressure either to convert to Islam or to leave their homes and that they form a disproportionately large group of those fleeing the country.[107]


83. The FCO Report discusses the allegations of abuses by coalition forces. It calls the claims that Iraqi civilians were killed unlawfully by US forces in Haditha "deeply shocking."[108] On 31 May 2006, President Bush announced that anyone who had broken the law with respect to Haditha would be punished.[109] On 21 December 2006, the US military charged four marines with the murder of two dozen Iraqi civilians in Haditha after running amok following the death of a colleague. Military lawyers also brought related charges against four other marines, including accusations of failure to report and/or investigate the killings, dereliction of duty and making false statements. A military press release had originally claimed most of the dead Iraqis were victims of a roadside bombing, but a full-scale investigation was opened following a report by Time magazine that pointed to American involvement.[110] The marines are expected to be taken before a court martial shortly.[111] Both Amnesty and Human Rights Watch were strongly critical of the US investigation into the Haditha killings.[112]


84. MoD figures indicate that on 24 January 2007, the UK held 115 detainees in Iraq and the US was holding over 15,000 detainees.[113] Amnesty International wrote to us expressing its concern "about the handover of Multi-National Force held defendants to the Iraqi authorities following trials which fall short of international fair trial standards… Amnesty International would ask how the MNF ensures the right to a fair trial for those handed over to the Iraqi authorities."[114]

85. On February 1 the Committee wrote to the FCO requesting a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom and Iraq governing the transfer of individuals detained in Iraq by UK forces, as referred to in a Written Answer of 9 January (HC Deb, col 520W). We recommend that this Memorandum of Understanding is provided to the Committee forthwith.

86. Saddam Hussein was executed on 30 December 2006. He had been found guilty by the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) in November of charges relating to the 1982 killing of 143 Shia Muslims in the village of Dujail. He was executed following the rejection of his appeal. Charges against the former President relating to a second incident in Anfal (the gassing of a large number of Kurds) were dropped following his death. Human Rights Watch were "disappointed that his execution has brought an end to … his trial for those crimes."[115]

87. The FCO Report outlines the assistance given by the British Government to the tribunal (including helping to fund the training of judges and prosecutors). The Report states that this training "will help to ensure that the IHT can maintain high standards so that the accused can be given a fair trial."[116] In our last Report on human rights, we concluded that while the trial of Saddam Hussein was a matter for the Iraqi people, "the Government should urge the Iraqi administration to ensure the trial fulfils the accepted norms of justice."[117]

88. NGO criticism of the trial and of the application of the death penalty has been severe. In its written evidence, Human Rights Watch lists a number of grave concerns, including political interference by the Iraqi government, "regular failure to disclose key evidence… to the defence in advance", "violations of the defendants' basic fair trial right to confront witnesses against them" and the fast-tracking of Saddam's execution, just days after his appeal was rejected.[118] Amnesty International highlights, more generally, "the sharp rise in executions" since the restatement of the death penalty by the transitional government. It also argues that "confessions are routinely extracted under torture" and that death sentences are applied "after unfair trials."[119]

89. Following Saddam Hussein's execution, the Foreign Secretary commented that,

    the British government does not support the use of the death penalty, in Iraq or anywhere else. We advocate an end to the death penalty worldwide, regardless of the individual or the crime. We have made our position very clear to the Iraqi authorities, but we respect their decision as that of a sovereign nation.[120]

However, when judgment was passed, Mrs Beckett had welcomed Saddam being "held to account", and said "it is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice."[121]

90. We asked Mr McCartney whether in his view the treatment of Saddam Hussein fulfilled accepted norms of justice. He replied that,

    In general, I have to say that [Saddam Hussein] was prosecuted properly under the procedures of Iraqi law. I am hoping that in the coming years, the legal system will continue to improve, both in its prosecuting and defence standards and in dealing with outcomes such as jail sentences and other things. In the final analysis, we made it quite clear, when he was given the death penalty, that the Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, including for him. We made it clear that that was the case. We do not support the death penalty even for those found guilty of crimes against humanity.[122]

91. The Minister also set out a long list of actions taken by the Government to promote respect for human rights in Iraq.[123]

    We are trying to inculcate across the [Iraqi] Government the ability, willingness and preparedness to put human rights at the heart of everything that they are trying and need to do. That means giving support to an independent national human rights commission and a national centre for missing people. We support the plan to develop those two institutions.[124]

However, like other Ministers, Mr McCartney constantly referred back to the appalling disregard for human rights under the regime of Saddam Hussein. This is understandable, but although the litany of past abuses may explain the continuing culture of violence in Iraq, it cannot justify it.

92. We conclude that since February 2006 there has been a further grave deterioration in respect for human rights in Iraq, in large part caused by the worsening security situation. We are concerned by allegations that some Iraqi ministers and ministries are involved in human rights abuses, and by the sharp rise in the number of executions and claims of unfair trials in Iraq, including the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein. We recommend that the Government redouble efforts to promote respect for the rule of law and for human rights in organs of the Iraqi state.


93. The United Kingdom started to deploy troops in Helmand Province in the south of Afghanistan in February 2006 as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF); full operational capability was reached on 1 July. The FCO Report makes reference to the "more demanding" security situation in the south as compared to the rest of Afghanistan.[125]

94. The Report goes on to outline the Government's human rights work in Afghanistan, including the promotion of women's rights through the Global Opportunities Fund and (during the British Presidency of the EU) two formal demarches concerning opposition to the death penalty and free speech. Since 2001, DFID has spent £390 million in Afghanistan, which makes the United Kingdom the second largest donor.[126]

95. In its written evidence, Human Rights Watch raised concerns about the reliance of the Afghan government and its international allies on "war criminals, human rights abusers, and drug traffickers."[127] Amnesty International highlighted the appointment of individuals with "well-known records of human rights abuse" to various posts, including governors or heads of provincial police forces.[128] In a meeting with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission during a visit to Afghanistan in November 2006, members of the Committee were told that 90% of Afghans would like to see real justice and would view the removal of warlords as a step in the right direction. In our Report on the FCO's 2005 human rights report, we noted "major concerns" at the lack of judicial process against human rights abusers in Afghanistan.[129]

96. President Karzai approved the Action Plan for Peace, Reconciliation and Justice on 12 December 2005. This includes a justice and accountability mechanism. However, The Times reported on 2 February 2007 that,

    warlords in the Afghan parliament have granted themselves an amnesty from human rights charges in a move that has shocked the country's Western backers. […] The rule states that anyone who fought against the Soviet Army in the 1980s cannot be prosecuted. If approved by the Upper House, the legislation would trigger a review of international human rights treaties signed recently by Afghanistan, and anyone who described an MP as a warlord would risk prosecution. [130]

The Times report also noted that the UN had issued a stinging rebuke. It said: "The suffering of victims must be acknowledged for national reconciliation to succeed. No one has the right to forgive those responsible for human rights violations other than the victims themselves." The United Kingdom apparently believed that President Karzai would veto the law.[131]

97. When we asked Ian McCartney to comment on the new law, his response was very forthright:

    It is extremely unhelpful and in the long term it does not engender what we need to engender, which is trust and respect for the new, emerging democratic structures in Afghanistan. … [it] goes against the whole grain of what we are trying to do and to work with, of what the international community is trying to do and of what [President Karzai] and this Government are committed to do.[132]

We share the Government's concerns about steps to declare an amnesty for warlords in Afghanistan's parliament, and we welcome the strong position Ministers have taken on this issue.

98. However, we remain concerned by the lack of progress in achieving basic human rights in large sections of Afghan society and we recommend that in the Annual Human Rights Report 2007, the Government provide statistics on incidence of rape, honour killings and other abuses against women in Afghanistan.


99. Another area of concern is the impact on the civilian population in Afghanistan of increasing military engagement between NATO forces and the Taliban and other militia groups. The US Air Force dropped more bombs in the six months leading to December than in the whole first three years of fighting the Taliban, according to Pentagon figures.[133]

100. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai wept in the course of a televised speech in December, saying: "We can't prevent the terrorists coming from Pakistan. We can't prevent the [NATO] coalition from bombing terrorists. And our children are dying because of that."[134] An estimated 4,000 people died from violence in Afghanistan in 2006; roughly 1,000 of these were civilians. A NATO spokesperson has said the organisation is looking to curb civilian casualties as a matter of urgency.[135] Despite six pages on human rights in Afghanistan in the FCO Report, there is little reference to this disturbing situation.

101. In evidence to us, Tom Porteous of Human Rights Watch discussed civilian deaths caused by NATO actions. He argued that "it is very important that compensation should be paid promptly to the families of those who were killed and injured, in order not to alienate entirely the civilian population in those areas."[136] Human Rights Watch has previously noted that the US already runs a compensation programme in Afghanistan, which does not assign blame but provides condolence payments to families that have suffered losses in US operations. Human Rights Watch said "there's no reason it shouldn't be NATO policy as well."[137]

102. We asked the Minister why NATO did not have a policy of compensation comparable to that operated by the American forces in Afghanistan.[138] The Minister wrote back to us,

    It is the national responsibility of each ISAF troop-contributing nation to pay compensation for valid claims related to civilian casualties. The UK believes it important that compensation claims are considered quickly by allies and compensation is paid promptly in accordance with legal liability. To assist in the thorough and expedient resolution of claims, it is normal procedure for the Ministry of Defence to deploy an Area Claims Officer (ACO) to those NATO operations where the UK is a contributing nation. The ACO is responsible for handling all but the most serious compensation claims. Those claims involving death or serious injury are handled by the Ministry of Defence in the UK because of their complex and sensitive nature and to ensure a consistent approach in their handling.[139]

103. We recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out how much compensation it has paid to civilian victims of British military operations in Afghanistan, to how many persons such payments have been made, and in what circumstances. We also recommend that the Government state what steps it has taken to remind its NATO allies of the need to pay compensation in appropriate cases.

72   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 180 Back

73   Ibid, p 189 Back

74   "Ministers accused of sidestepping torture ban", The Guardian, 2 November 2006 Back

75   Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of session 2005-06, The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), HC 185/HC 701, paras 126-131 Back

76   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 181 Back

77   See "Undermining the Torture Ban", and "UK human rights: a broken promise", Back

78   Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of session 2005-06, The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), HC 185/HC 701, paras 126-131 Back

79   Q 29 Back

80   Q 30 Back

81   Q 65 Back

82   Q 66 Back

83   Ev 84-85 Back

84   "UK/Algeria: Deals must not mean returning suspects to face torture",  Back

85   Ev 85-86 Back

86   Ev 58 Back

87   Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574, para 58 Back

88   Q 67 Back

89   Ev 87 Back

90   See, for example, Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2004-05, Human Rights Annual Report 2004, HC 109, paras 94-106; Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574, paras 54-58 Back

91   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, CM 6916, October 2006 Back

92   Speech of 6 September 2006; see Back

93   Ev 95 Back

94   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 181 Back

95   Foreign Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2006-07, Visit to Guantánamo Bay, HC 206 Back

96   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Second Report of Foreign Affairs Committee Session 2006-2007, Visit to Guantánamo Bay, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 7063, March 2007 Back

97   Report of the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, p13, (2006/2200(INI)), available at Back

98   Q 68 Back

99   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 182 Back

100   Ev 5, para 25 Back

101   Ev 49 Back

102   See Back

103   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 68 Back

104   Ibid, p 69 Back

105   Report of the Iraq Study Group, p10, available at Back

106   Ev 27 Back

107   Ev 98, para 8.2 Back

108   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006 Back

109   Ibid, p 70 Back

110   "Marines charged in alleged massacre of Iraqis", Financial Times, 22 December 2006 Back

111   "Marines in Haditha: Locals not focused on alleged '05 massacre", Stars and Stripes, 4 March 2007 Back

112   Ev 50; Ev 54 Back

113   Written evidence from the Ministry of Defence to the Defence Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee,

HC (2006-07) 209-i, Ev 20 Back

114   Ev 49 Back

115   Q 24 Back

116   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006, p 77 Back

117   Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574 Back

118   Ev 27 Back

119   Ev 20, para 139 Back

120   "Saddam hanged: Reaction in quotes", BBC News, 30 December 2006, Back

121   "Government hails Saddam verdict", BBC News, 5 November 2006, Back

122   Q 71 Back

123   Q 70 Back

124   Q 73 Back

125   Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, Cm 6916, October 2006 Back

126   Ibid, pp30-35 Back

127   Ev 27 Back

128   Ev 14, para 94 Back

129   Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, Human Rights Annual Report 2005, HC 574 Back

130   "Warlords declare amnesty on their murderous past", The Times, 2 February 2007 Back

131   Ibid Back

132   Q 74; Q 76 Back

133   "Wave of civilian deaths hit Afghan support for NATO", Financial Times, 16 December 2006 Back

134   "Dark days ahead for Kabul", The Guardian, 20 December 2006 Back

135   "Wave of civilian deaths hit Afghan support for NATO", Financial Times, 16 December 2006 Back

136   Q 28 Back

137 Back

138   Q 76 Back

139   Ev 86 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 29 April 2007