Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Amnesty International UK

CONTENTS

  Amnesty InternationalEv 1  

  The FCO reportEv 1  

  Human rights and counter-terrorismEv 3  

  TortureEv 6  

  UN reform and human rights at the UNEv 6  

  Arms controlEv 7  

  Human rights and EuropeEv 8  

  Business and human rightsEv 10

  Women's rightsEv 11

  Death penaltyEv 12

  Economic, social and cultural rightsEv 13

  AfghanistanEv 14

  AlgeriaEv 15

  ChinaEv 15

  ColumbiaEv 17

  Democratic Republic of the CongoEv 17

  IndiaEv 19

  IraqEv 20

  Israel and the Occupied TerritoriesEv 21

  RussiaEv 22

  SudanEv 24

  TurkeyEv 25

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.

THE FCO REPORT

  2.  Amnesty International welcomes the publication of the FCO Human Rights Annual Report 2006 ("the FCO report"). It is a comprehensive report providing a thorough overview, on the whole, of the work that the government has been doing to protect and promote human rights worldwide. As we have said in previous years, it remains important for the government to take the opportunity of the publication of the report to present its activities in depth and breadth and to explain its position in a competent and coherent manner. Thus, 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 similarly welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the work of the FAC Committee ("the committee") in its scrutiny of FCO human rights policy. We believe that 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 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 Amnesty International's observations and recommendations regarding the FCO report. Amnesty International welcomes therefore the opportunity that the committee is providing to the organisation to present oral evidence to it when it meets in January 2007. We will also be pleased to submit additional information should the committee require it.

COMMENT ON PURPOSE AND INTENT

Content and structure of the report

  5.  The FCO report records developments between August 2005 and September 2006.  In our submission to the committee last year, we criticised the 2005 report for leading with a description of what might be called the "bread and butter" work undertaken by the FCO. This was particularly given the horrifying London suicide bomb attacks of July 2005, reference to which was buried deep inside the text. This year, we are glad to see the report return to its previous form of commencing with an Overview and Challenges, including reference to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on human rights and the need to close the detention centre at Guantánamo Bay.

  6.  We are glad, too, to see reference to the value of working with human rights defenders in this section, and also to the importance of working with NGOs. The Secretary of State in her speech at the launch of the report reiterated this commitment to such dialogue and the Minister for Human Rights has recognised the worth of doing so similarly. The FCO has done some valuable work with both human rights defenders and in consultation with NGOs in the last year and we look forward to such cooperation continuing. We would ask that such consultation be regularised, however, and that feedback post dialogues, for example, be more systematic.

  7.  We also welcome the strengthened reference to mainstreaming throughout the FCO report. Mainstreaming is also discussed in the revised Human Rights, Democracy and Governance Group (HRDGG) Human Rights Strategy and we note also the new production of a regular E-Newsletter on Human Rights by HRDGG. Both mainstreaming and information-sharing are invaluable tools of that department in its efforts to raise the profile of human rights throughout government. We suggest in relation to this, however, that HRDGG carry out an assessment of the effects of mainstreaming to date.

UK government policy towards human rights

  8.  Despite the above developments, and as in previous years, we retain questions about the extent of the government's overall commitment to human rights, however. Ten years on since the FCO started reporting on its human rights work, there is a need to urgently reinvigorate the human rights aspect of the UK government's foreign policy work. We appreciate that much valuable work is being undertaken by the UK government around the world but this is being strongly undermined by its failure to uphold human rights in the context of the war on terror. Thus, whilst the UK government ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture in 2003 and has been instrumental in the global campaign to promote ratification, the report makes no commitment to cease efforts to deport people to states where they face a real risk of torture, there is no acknowledgement of, or reaction to, the use of secret detention by the USA and no comment on a possible investigation into rendition.

  9.  Furthermore, we continue to question the FCO's rationale for subsuming work on human rights under the strategic priority of sustainable development. We feel, as before, that this is a reflection of the fact that the FCO does not believe human rights to be a stand-alone strategic priority. Very little reference is made to human rights in the FCO's White Paper of March 2006 (there is no reference to mainstreaming of human rights in this document) and the Secretary of State's first speech on the subject was some three months after taking office. We remain troubled by this apparent side-lining of human rights.

  10.  Last year, the committee noted our concerns about this positioning of human rights and was also of the view that the government risked downgrading its human rights work by combining human rights responsibilities with trade in the person of the same minister. In its report, the committee noted that "the Minister of State has two seemingly contradictory roles" and that "It is inevitable that these two roles will sometimes stand in sharp contradiction." Despite a robust rebuttal of this view by Mr McCartney and the FCO, we believe that this particular concern, also, still stands.

Funding for human rights projects

  11.  The committee will remember that in previous submissions we have also raised the issue of funding for human rights projects as a matter of concern. This includes the fact that it is difficult to establish what funding is being made available for discrete human rights projects within the larger sums provided for through "human rights, democracy and governance". We highlighted in this respect that it was difficult not to interpret the government's definition of a human rights project as being what the FCO says it is; a concern the committee took up and reiterated. We were also concerned that fewer countries were eligible for funding under the Global Opportunities Fund (GOF) programme than the previous Human Rights Project Fund (HRPF) and that limited sums are now available for thematic work under the Sustainable Development programme.

  12.  In our submission to the FAC last year, we reported that in the 2004/2005 financial year, the FCO report stated that £13.4 million was spent on human rights, democracy and governance work overall. Looking at the figures presented for such work in Annex 2 of that report, and those provided elsewhere by the FCO, however, we were unable to identify expenditure in 2004/2005 beyond approximately £11 million. At the time of making our submission to the committee in 2005, we were attempting to clarify this discrepancy with the FCO. Subsequent to the FAC inquiry, we were told that such figures were, in fact not obviously reconcilable and the discrepancy identified not possible to clarify.

  13.  We looked forward to greater clarity this year in the report as to how funding levels for human rights projects were reached. However, this year, we note that while the FCO continues to list the work it funds through the GOF, it does not state what sum is spent on each project, or in total on human rights work overall. This lack of information makes it impossible to judge to what levels the government funded human rights work in 2005/2006 and appears to make it less accountable. We query why the FCO has changed its reporting style in this way and would be grateful for an indication of these figures as previously.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND COUNTER-TERRORISM (PAGES 13-14, 175 AND 178-184)

  14.  Amnesty International fully recognises the serious nature of today's threats to public safety and the obligation on all states to act to protect their citizens. States have an obligation to take measures to prevent and protect against attacks on civilians; to investigate such crimes; to bring to justice those responsible in fair proceedings; and to ensure prompt and adequate reparation to victims. However, it is equally incumbent on the UK government to ensure that all measures taken to bring people to justice, as well as all measures to protect people from terrorism, are consistent with international human rights law and standards. Unless governments across the world respond to the threat of international terrorism in a manner that is fully grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, they risk undermining the values they seek to protect and defend.

  15.  The report affirms that the rule of law is essential to any successful counter-terrorism strategy and states that "counter-terrorism measures should be legal, proportionate and justifiable. Promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is, in the long term, the best guarantee of our own security." Amnesty International welcomes such statements. However, we would question whether these principles are matched by policy in a number of areas. Amnesty International considers that the UK's authority to speak out on human rights violations around the world is being seriously weakened by its counter terrorism policies and measures.

Deportation from the UK

  16.  Amnesty International is extremely concerned at the UK government's efforts to deport foreign nationals by means of diplomatic assurances (whether memorandums of understanding, exchange of letters or any other sort of diplomatic agreement). The absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is one of the most universally accepted human rights. This prohibition encompasses a ban on transferring a person to a state where there is a risk they would be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment (non-refoulement).[1] The principle is binding on all states, is absolute and permits no exceptions. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to reaffirm its commitment to the absolute obligation under international law not to return any person to a country where they face a real risk of torture or ill-treatment.

  17.  The UK government is seeking to circumvent this principle to deport people it considers a security risk. Amnesty International strongly disagrees with the report's contention that diplomatic assurances take full account of human rights obligations; this view is shared by many others. For example, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak has said: "The prohibition of torture is absolute, and States risk violating this prohibition . . . by transferring persons to countries where they may be at risk of torture."[2] Amnesty International considers that the UK's reliance on diplomatic assurances when seeking to expel people to countries where they risk torture or ill-treatment would violate its obligations under international law. Diplomatic assurances are corrosive of the absolute prohibition against torture.

  18.  The report states that memorandums of understanding provide assurances that meet international standards and offer "an additional layer of protection over and above the provisions contained in international human rights instruments". However, the government's view is contrary to that of international human rights institutions and experts. Diplomatic assurances are only sought with countries where there is a risk of torture and ill-treatment and which do not respect their existing obligations. Given that these states have previously violated legally binding obligations, they cannot be relied on to honour bilateral diplomatic understandings. Moreover, torture and other ill-treatment almost always happens in secret. Amnesty International considers that undertakings not to torture made by states known to use torture or ill-treatment are self-contradictory and cannot be relied upon.

  19.  The idea that post-return monitoring mechanisms bolster the effectiveness of diplomatic assurances is misguided. The safeguards that diplomatic assurances provide fall below those contained in international law; they lack an enforcement mechanism and do not provide a remedy in case of a breach. Indeed, diplomatic assurances have proven to be ineffective. People who have been transferred on the basis of diplomatic assurances by other countries have later complained of torture.[3] Amnesty International considers that diplomatic assurances are inherently unreliable and in practice ineffective.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and deportation

  20.  Amnesty International is concerned at what the report describes as efforts to "balance" the risk of torture and ill-treatment with national security concerns in relation to efforts to deport people from the UK. The UK government maintains that there should be "some recognition of the importance of balancing risks". Amnesty International considers that the UK government is attempting to undermine the absolute prohibition of torture or other ill-treatment by its efforts to `balance' national security and the risk of torture.

  21.  Amnesty International is also deeply concerned at suggestions by government ministers that it might be possible to make a distinction between torture and ill-treatment under Article 3 and thereby overcome obstacles to deportation.[4] Amnesty International considers that the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment is absolute, at all times and under any circumstances. Amnesty International finds it extraordinary that the UK government, which has been a strong advocate of the elimination of torture throughout the world, should now be undermining this work by seeking to circumvent the principle of non-refoulement.

Rendition and secret detention

  22.  Rendition is the secret transfer of individuals without judicial process to countries where they are reportedly tortured and to US detention centres around the world. Amnesty International welcomes the statement that "We do not use rendition to bring terrorist suspects to face legal proceedings in the UK". However, we are concerned at the report's prevarication over the legal status of rendition. Amnesty International believes that rendition is illegal under domestic and international law because it bypasses judicial and administrative due process and typically involves multiple human rights violations. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to take an unequivocal position on the process of rendition.

  23.  The report outlines US assurances over the use of torture and practice of rendition. Amnesty International is far from reassured by these; US protections against torture are less than adequate. Moreover, the report has been overtaken by President Bush's speech of 6 September 2006 in which he confirmed the existence of a CIA secret detention and interrogation programme, and therefore the rendition network that supported it. He also defended the use of "alternative" interrogation techniques, which he said had been used to break the resistance of detainees. Although the President said that the CIA is not now holding anyone in its secret programme, he also said that the CIA detention programme would remain "crucial". The UK government should make unequivocal public representations to the US government urging it to make a full disclosure of its rendition programme, cease rendition and illegal detention across the world and hold to account those involved in these practices.

  24.  On 13 November 2006, the third committee of the UN General Assembly voted unanimously to adopt the UN Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.[5] In welcoming this move, the UK government stated that they consider an enforced disappearance to comprise the following elements:

—  an arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty;

—  such acts are committed by agents of the state or by persons or groups acting with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of the state;

—  the act is followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person; and

—  the disappeared person is placed outside the protection of the law.

  Amnesty International is in no doubt that secret detention and enforced disappearance are crimes under international law. The organisation calls on the UK government to make clear its position on the legality of secret detention as practiced by the US.

  25.  The FCO report notes that the UK takes rendition "very seriously" and outlines the government's cooperation with various inquiries. However, Amnesty International considers that the UK government has been slow to answer questions about rendition and that it has failed to adequately investigate the use of UK airspace and airports to facilitate flights by CIA-chartered aircraft known to have taken part in rendition, including servicing planes about to embark on or returning from "rendering" a detainee. The November 2006 draft report by the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on rendition deplored the UK government's cooperation with it. The draft report also expressed "serious concern" about stopovers by CIA-operated aircraft at UK airports which were linked with rendition circuits. Amnesty International urges the UK government to launch a thorough and independent investigation into the use of UK airspace and airports to facilitate rendition.

Guantánamo Bay

  26.  The FCO report says that the UK government has long made it clear that it regards the circumstances under which detainees continue to be held at Guantánamo Bay as "unacceptable". However, recent comments by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney General notwithstanding, Amnesty International believes that the UK government has failed to publicly oppose the human rights scandal that is Guantánamo with any vigour and that its record in relation to the camp has been lamentable. We urge the UK government to take a clear and public position; they should demand that the USA close Guantánamo Bay. The UK government should also play an active role facilitating this closure.

  27.  The report notes the UK government's concern at reports of hunger strikes at Guantánamo but that the "US authorities have assured us of their commitment to ensuring the welfare of the detainees". There have been serious allegations of ill-treatment of hunger strikers during force-feeding. Detainees have alleged having nasal tubes roughly inserted into their noses without anaesthetic or gel, causing choking and bleeding. Amnesty International considers that if forcible feeding is done in such a way as deliberately to cause suffering this would constitute torture or other ill-treatment.

  28.  The conditions and uncertainty about detainees' fate have reportedly contributed to severe mental and emotional stress and there have been numerous suicide attempts. As of May 2006, the US Department of Defence had reported over thirty attempts, but has reclassified others as "manipulative self-injurious behaviour", indicating a disregard for detainees' welfare as well as the circumstances underlying such incidents. On 10 June 2006, three detainees were found dead in their cells, apparently having hanged themselves. All three had previously participated in hunger-strikes and been subjected to force-feeding. All were held in a maximum security section of the camp. One was reportedly just 17 when he was taken into custody. Amnesty International is disturbed by descriptions of suicides at Guantánamo Bay by US officials as "asymmetric warfare" and "a good PR move".

  29.  The report has been overtaken by the Military Commissions Act, which was signed into law in October 2006.  While commissions that can be established under the Act would be an improvement on their fundamentally flawed predecessors, Amnesty International remains concerned that any trials convened under the Act are unlikely to meet international fair trial standards. The Act facilitates human rights violations and impunity for them, frustrates detainees' access to remedies, and threatens to lead to unfair trials. Amnesty International is campaigning for the repeal of the Military Commissions Act; trials must meet international standards of fairness.

  30.  The report notes what it describes as positive developments on the clarification of US procedures. However, Amnesty International is extremely concerned that US protections against torture and ill-treatment are inadequate. Treaty reservations mean that the US considers itself, including under the Detainee Treatment Act, bound by the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment only to the extent that it matches existing US law. Under US Supreme Court jurisprudence, conduct is banned that "shocks the conscience". Thus, if a detainee is believed to have information considered important to national security, the "shocks the conscience" test could be interpreted to allow detention and interrogation that would otherwise be unlawful. Amnesty International urges the UK government to press President Bush to withdraw his signing statement to the Detainee Treatment Act. We also call for the UK government to press the US government to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

  31.  Amnesty International remains concerned at the UK government's continued failure to make adequate representations on behalf of UK residents still held at Guantánamo. At least eight former UK residents remain detained at Guantánamo. These include men who had been residents in the UK for a long time and who have family members who are UK nationals; others have been granted refugee status in the UK. Amnesty International considers that the UK Government is obliged under domestic and international law to make representations on behalf of all UK residents still held at Guantánamo to ensure that their human rights are upheld.

  32.  Amnesty International is also concerned that the UK authorities have failed to undertake a full independent and impartial investigation into the UK's involvement in the rendition of UK residents Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna, who remain detained at Guantánamo. This issue was raised by the European Parliament's Temporary Committee. The UK government should undertake a full, independent and impartial investigation to establish whether UK security services were complicit, whether wittingly or unwittingly, in the detention of former UK residents and subsequent human rights violations.

TORTURE (PAGES 175 AND 187-190)

  33.  Amnesty International endorses the view expressed in the report that "Torture has no place in the 21st century. It is one of the most abhorrent violations of human rights and human dignity."[6] We also welcome the statement that the government has made international action against torture a priority since the UK anti-torture initiative was launched in 1998. However, we are deeply concerned that the UK government's good work across the world to bring an end to torture is being undermined by its apparent disregard for human rights in the international war on terror.

  34.  The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) came into force on 22 June 2006.  The OPCAT represents a practical means towards preventing torture and other ill-treatment. It establishes a system of regular visits to all places of detention by independent bodies and by a new international expert body, the Subcommittee, which will carry out unannounced visits. Amnesty International welcomes the coming into force of the OPCAT and the role played by the UK government in supporting this. We urge the UK government to work to ensure that the Subcommittee has sufficient resources to enable it to fully carry out its mandate and to continue to push additional states to ratify the OPCAT.

Torture evidence

  35.  Amnesty International is concerned at the absence of material on the use of evidence and information derived from torture in this year's FCO report. The previous report outlined the government's position on this issue, and the committee has pressed hard for information on whether the UK receives or acts upon information extracted under torture. The omission is all the more surprising since there have been a number of important developments in the period covered by the report.

  36.  In December 2005, the UK government lost its legal battle to reverse the total ban on the admissibility in judicial proceedings, as "evidence", of information obtained through torture. Seven Law Lords unanimously confirmed that such evidence is inadmissible. They also ruled that there was a duty to investigate whether torture had taken place, and to exclude any evidence if the conclusion was that it was more likely than not that it had been obtained through torture.

  37.  The European Parliament's Temporary Committee on rendition also commented on the issue in its draft report. We are particularly concerned at what it says about the legal opinion of Michael Wood, former legal adviser to the FCO, and the suggestion that "receiving or possessing" information extracted under torture, in so far as there is no direct participation in the torture, is not per se prohibited. Amnesty International believes that under international law torture is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances; no statement obtained through torture or other ill-treatment should be admitted as evidence except in proceedings against torturers.

UN REFORM AND HUMAN RIGHTS AT THE UN (P 15, 161—169)

  38.  Amnesty International welcomes the support and commitment that the UK government has shown for the new Human Rights Council (HRC) and for the opportunity that it has given to Amnesty International and other organisations to engage in dialogue with it on this issue.

  39.  We agree with the FCO report that the HRC's success will depend on the political will of its members and its ability to establish effective mechanisms for addressing human rights. Amnesty International believes that there are effective mechanisms that existed in the Commission for Human Rights (CHR) that must be adopted, protected and strengthened in the HRC. The process of Special Procedures, the bodies mandated to investigate specific countries and concerns, for example is one such mechanism and is currently under review. It is vital that these Special Procedures are not weakened or subject to resolutions that would limit their ability to carry out their work. We also agree with the report that the universal periodic review mechanism is potentially a valuable tool for addressing human rights in a non-selective and transparent manner and we urge the UK government to continue its discussions with Amnesty International and other NGOs as to how the review mechanism can be developed.

  40.  On a procedural level Amnesty International has been disappointed that some of the resolutions proposed at the HRC sessions have been subject to narrow political objectives and have resulted in weak resolutions. However, we do remain optimistic that the HRC can become an effective body and we urge the UK government to continue to use its influence to ensure that the Special Procedures are protected during the review and are not subject to any measures that would weaken their ability to effectively address human rights concerns. We would also urge the UK government to use its membership of the HRC to make representations that would strengthen resolutions and statements addressing human rights.

  41.  The report highlights the agreement at the September 2005 UN World Summit on the concept of the `responsibility to protect' and subsequent adoption of Resolution 1674 on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Over one year on, Amnesty International is disappointed that so far the Security Council has been unable to meet the "responsibility to protect" in Darfur, Sudan. The situation in Darfur is a key test of the Security Council's commitment to the concept of "responsibility to protect". Tens of thousands of people have been killed, raped and assaulted and almost two million people forced from their homes. Amnesty International welcomes the UK government's commitment in the report "to ensure that the agreement on the responsibility to protect is translated into a willingness to act on specific cases". Amnesty International urges the UK government to use their influence as a permanent member of the Security Council to ensure that civilians caught up in armed conflict are protected in all cases.

  42.  Amnesty International welcomes UK government support for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and its projects. The report states that "the UK is one of the largest donors in terms of voluntary contributions". We urge the UK government to continue this support and to use its influence to ensure other states are contributing to the OHCHR in order that it can implement its action plan.

  43.  Amnesty International welcomes the support that the UK government has given to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its commitment to continue to lobby for the ratification of the ICC Statute. Amnesty International welcomes the donations that the UK has made to the ICC Trust Fund for Victims and urge it to continue to make regular, substantial contributions and to encourage other states to do the same, ensuring that the Fund receives global support.

ARMS CONTROL (PAGES 21-22, 217-219)

Arms Trade Treaty

  44.  The development of an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), to help curb the flow of arms to those using them to commit abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law, remains crucial. Significant progress was made towards establishing an ATT last year.

  45.  The UK government, alongside its international partners, has continued to play a lead role in promoting the ATT on the international stage. On December 6 2006, the UN General Assembly voted to start the process towards establishing an ATT, with 153 states voting in favour, 22 abstentions and only one vote against. The resolution sets out a timetable for the UN to establish a group of governmental experts (GGE) to consider the feasibility, scope and draft parameters of a legally-binding ATT and to report back to the General Assembly in 2008.  Prior to the GGE, a more informal consultation process will take place, with states invited to submit their views on an ATT to the Secretary General.

  46.  It was a major disappointment that the June 2006 UN conference on illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons failed to agree tough transfer control principles over the import, export and transit of small arms and light weapons. The failure to agree these principles, despite widespread and majority support from UN member states, means that there are no binding rules to ensure that these categories of weapons are transferred according to established principles of international humanitarian and human rights law. Developing a set of tough rules based on international law on the transfer of a particularly problematic category of weaponry would have been a clear benefit to the development of the ATT, as it would have set a tough international standard which the ATT could have been built upon.

  47.   From the experience of the UN small arms process, developing the ATT is going to be challenging. As one of the leading governments backing the ATT initiative, the UK government must continue to work hard to drive the ATT process through the UN system and increase its efforts to secure widespread and international active support, particularly from southern governments. Without considerable international effort over the next two years, it is likely that the ATT will take years to come into effect and lack the necessary robustness to be effective in stemming the flow of irresponsible arms exports. We also urge the UK government to ensure that other relevant international processes, such as the current UN GGE on arms brokering are consistent and complementary to establishing an effective ATT.

Export Licensing

  48.  The UK government has made a commitment not to grant arms export licences to countries or end-users that could use equipment to facilitate human rights abuses. Yet in its reporting on strategic export controls, export licences for types of equipment that could be used to commit abuses continue to be issued to a number of countries where the UK government has expressed concern over their human rights record. These countries include, for example, China, Colombia, Israel, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The types of equipment that have been licensed to these destinations include armoured vehicles, pistols, machine guns and sniper rifles, components for combat helicopters, components for air to surface missiles, body armour, riot control agents and military communications equipment.

  49.  The government has made some improvements in the levels of transparency in its reporting, by disclosing the end-users of certain equipment, particularly where this is for a humanitarian end use (eg mine clearance) or for peacekeeping activities. However, the UK government's arms export reports still do not allow adequate and meaningful scrutiny of the UK government's policy commitment not to send arms where they could be used to commit human rights abuses. The UK government should provide a much more coherent explanation of its export licensing decisions to countries it lists as being of "major concern" in the FCO report. The UK government should also publish more information on the end use and end-users.

Review of the Export Control Act

  50.  The 2002 and 2004 Export Control legislation will be reviewed in 2007.  The review offers the opportunity to close existing loopholes in the UK's export control system that allow arms to be supplied to countries where they could be used to commit atrocities. For example, in May 2005, Uzbekistan's security forces used military Land Rover defender vehicles during the Andijan massacre; these Land Rovers were supplied by Turkey, which manufactures these vehicles under license from Land Rover in the UK. In February 2005, it emerged that a UK subsidiary company based in India, was negotiating to supply military trucks to Sudan, a deal that would have been illegal if done from the UK, as Sudan is subject to an EU arms embargo. Whilst we welcome the introduction of the EU Regulation on Torture, it emerged last year that several categories of torture goods, including sting sticks (metal spiked batons) and interrogation foot-heaters, were not classified on the list of goods covered by the regulation, and therefore fell outside the scope of the regulation.

  51.   We urge the UK government to honour its 2002 Manifesto commitment and introduce extra-territorial controls on arms brokering and trafficking, especially for small arms, light weapons and ammunition. We urge the UK government to introduce re-export controls on all military equipment produced under-license overseas and also for exports via subsidiary companies, at a minimum to destinations subject to arms embargoes. A "catch-all" clause should be introduced to cover torture equipment, so that goods not classified on a specific list of torture goods, but that can nevertheless be used to facilitate acts of torture, are controlled, irrespective of whether they appear on a specific list of controlled goods.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EUROPE (PAGES 127-159 AND P 285)

  52.  The committee's last human rights report noted that "the EU has put human rights at the centre of its Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)". However, Amnesty International is concerned that despite having gained considerable experience projecting its fundamental values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the EU is coming to be perceived as applying double standards at home as well as in external relations. In our view, this is beginning to affect Europe's ability to conduct a credible human rights policy.

The Fundamental Rights Agency

  53.  Due to start in January 2007, Amnesty International has consistently called for the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) to have a role on third pillar matters. Excluding such a role from the FRA's mandate would preclude it from addressing the core human rights challenges in the EU today, including the fight against terrorism and the protection of individual freedoms in policing and criminal justice. The compromise solution the European Council finally adopted in December 2006 provides for an extremely limited role for the FRA in third pillar matters, hindering it from seriously addressing the fundamental question of how the EU upholds and promotes its common human rights values. Amnesty International urges the UK government to take steps to create a new dynamic around the FRA in order to resuscitate this important EU initiative. In addition, Amnesty International believes that a dedicated structure in the European Council should be created to deal with human rights within the EU.

EU guidelines

  54.  EU guidelines on human rights (which include those on torture, the death penalty, children in armed conflict and human rights defenders) constitute an important set of concrete foreign policy tools to be used at EU level and by Member States, and in particular through missions in third countries. However, it is increasingly problematic that the main responsibility for implementing the guidelines is effectively carried by an already overburdened Presidency. There is an urgent need to examine the scope for burden-sharing among Member States. This could be achieved by integrating the aims and objectives in the guidelines into regional strategies and association agreements. Amnesty International urges the UK government to work to ensure that initiatives undertaken during the German Presidency provide opportunities not only to enhance coherence but also burden-sharing between Member States and between the Presidency and the Commission.

Dialogues and consultations

  55.  The German Presidency of the EU will see the very important phase of re-negotiating the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia. The last decade has seen a significant deterioration of human rights in Russia, eroding civil liberty gains made during the 1990s, while the Chechnya conflict continues to generate gross human rights abuses. Amnesty International considers that it is important that the opportunity of negotiating the new partnership and cooperation agreement with Russia is used to ensure that human rights are fully integrated in the EU's relationship with its largest and most important neighbour.

  56.  The FCO report discusses the EU-China human rights dialogue. This dialogue has led to modest concessions in the legislative sphere, but has had a negligible influence on human rights practice. In our view, China has yet to show it is serious about stated intentions to improve its human rights record in light of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to press the EU to reiterate publicly the importance of human rights reform in relation to the renewed debate around lifting the EU arms embargo on China, put forward pertinent criteria against which to measure progress and ensure that the arms embargo remains in place until significant human rights progress is made.

Enlargement and neighbourhood policies

  57.  The formal approval of Action Plans for the countries of the Southern Caucasus in November 2006 closed an important geographic gap in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), which now defines relations with European neighbours from the Maghreb to Minsk. Amnesty International believes that two years after its inception, it is time to take stock of the ENP to assess its effectiveness, address policy inconsistencies and maximize the potential to influence the human rights record of neighbouring countries.

Candidate countries versus other neighbours

  58.  The Copenhagen criteria set clear benchmarks for candidate countries in key areas including human rights and the rule of law, with a clear plan to encourage a transformation towards common values. However, the formulation of common values remains vague vis-a"-vis other neighbours. The prospect of membership provides a stronger impetus than Action Plans, but the ambition of human rights reform should essentially be the same for all neighbours. The UK government should work towards strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy by establishing clear strategic policy guidelines which ensure the uniform application of readily understandable human rights standards for all its partners.

  59.  With the entry of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU in January 2007, the EU wants to "pause" enlargement until institutional reform has been achieved. However, negotiations are still under way with Croatia and Turkey. In Turkey, significant achievements have been made in legislative terms, but these are yet to be translated into effective human rights protection in practice. Croatia is cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, but many war crime cases need urgent investigation as they reach their statute of limitations, and as the FCO report states, Croatia needs strong encouragement to strengthen the judicial system and ensure that all perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity are brought to justice. Amnesty International urges the EU to maintain the human rights momentum of candidate countries.

New Ostpolitik versus EUROMED

  60.  Although the EU is the preferred partner for most countries of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, it has not been able to persuade these neighbours to voluntarily adopt the EU requirements in the areas of human rights and the rule of law. Amnesty International believes that countries sandwiched between the EU and Russia need EU engagement that has strengthening human rights, democracy and the rule of law at its core. A new "Ostpolitik" ought to promote harmonised approaches to these central issues, and support civil society in its efforts to consolidate basic freedoms.

  61.  The EU's relationship with neighbours to the south is being defined not only through the ENP and its Action Plans, but also through the institutions established during the eleven years of the EUROMED Partnership. The Barcelona Anniversary Summit held in November 2005 did little to clarify the relationship between these two processes. Nonetheless, the regional and bilateral dimensions have the potential to reinforce each other, and provide a powerful vehicle to promote the rule of law and human rights throughout this turbulent region. Amnesty International believes that a common human rights monitoring mechanism with an appropriate format ought to be applied to all Action Plans to strengthen human rights in the region.

Extended neighbourhood: Central Asia

  62.  Human rights remain fragile in all Central Asian countries and should therefore become a strong element in the new strategy to be approved under the German Presidency. Amnesty International is concerned that the new strategy for Central Asia should include components which address the protection of human rights defenders and the release of prisoners of conscience, adherence to the Convention Against Torture and abolition of the death penalty.

  63.  As the FCO report indicates, EU relations with the most populated Central Asian republic, Uzbekistan, have been severely strained since 13 May 2005, when police shot an estimated 745 people during anti-government protests in the eastern town of Andijan. By imposing sanctions over the refusal to allow an independent inquiry, the EU gave an important impetus to international efforts to exact accountability for these atrocities. The visa ban will come up for review during the German Presidency; it is important that this review is carried out on human rights merits rather than short-term political considerations in order to send a signal about the EU's political will to uphold human rights. Amnesty International believes that any dialogue with Uzbekistan should include efforts to positively influence the human rights situation in the country, including a call for a moratorium on the death penalty.

BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (PAGES 241-243)

Investigation into BAE Systems plc

  64.  Amnesty International welcomes the UK Government's efforts to "provide a framework to help businesses to act more responsibly". However, Amnesty International is deeply concerned at the recent decision of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to discontinue the investigation into the affairs of BAE Systems plc as far as they relate to the Al Yamamah defence contract with the government of Saudi Arabia. The SFO has stated that "the decision... was taken following representations that have been made to both the Attorney General and the Director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security" and that "it has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest".

  65.  Amnesty International reminds the UK government that the UK is a signatory to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Article 5 of this convention requires that the investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery: "... shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interests" or "the potential effect upon relations with another State... ".

  66.  Of serious concern to Amnesty International are the views recently expressed by the UK Prime Minister which would suggest that both the letter and the spirit of Article 5 have not been followed in this case. Amnesty International is concerned that the early termination of this investigation for reasons other than the legal merits of the case sends the message that companies trading with countries that governments claim to be of strategic importance are above the law.

  67.  This decision risks reversing the progress made in recent years by the 36 signatories to the OECD Anti-bribery Convention to raise standards and level the playing field in international business transactions. It also threatens the implementation of the more recent United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which requires all parties, including the new trading powers of China and India, to investigate and prosecute companies that pay bribes overseas. Amnesty International urges the UK government to re-open the investigation into BAE Systems plc.

Corporate Accountability Mechanisms

  68.  Amnesty International notes the UK government's commitment to the initiatives mentioned in the FCO report and takes the view that these initiatives form a positive first step in providing a framework to help businesses to act more responsibly. Of concern to Amnesty International, however, is the fact that there continue to be widespread and egregious violations of human rights for which companies either bear direct responsibility or are complicit in. It is for this reason that Amnesty International supports the development of binding standards and mechanisms both at a national and international level which would ensure that companies are fully accountable for their human rights impacts.

  69.  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 to account for their adverse impacts. Amnesty International therefore urges the UK government to support the development of 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. Such a framework should build on the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.

The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights

  70.  Amnesty International notes the FCO's view that the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights are particularly relevant to the protection of human rights. However Amnesty International is concerned that to date, insufficient progress has been made in setting up robust participation and reporting criteria for all companies participating in the initiative.

  71.   Amnesty International urges the UK government to outline a clear and strong position as to its expectations vis a vis companies which participate in the Voluntary Principles. In particular, these expectations should include the responsibility of companies to:

—  support a set of robust participation and reporting criteria for all companies participating in the initiative;

—  support and implement the Voluntary Principles comprehensively across all relevant operations;

—  uphold their commitments to participate and report when criteria have been agreed on.

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme

  72.  Although the problem of conflict diamonds has been greatly reduced in recent years, as a result of the improvement in the situation in some relevant African countries, Amnesty International believes that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is still not strong enough. A renewal of conflict in diamond-rich areas of Africa could see the re-emergence of conflict diamonds on a large scale, unless action is taken to improve the process now.

  73.  In 2007, the European Commission holds the Presidency of the Kimberley Process. The UK government has a key role to play in ensuring that the European Commission prioritises the strengthening of government control systems to prevent the trade in blood diamonds.

  74.   The UK government and the European Commission must:

—  require all sectors of the diamond trade to implement transparent and independently audited sourcing policies to track diamonds from the country of origin to the retailer;

—  provide adequate financing to promote effective implementation of the Kimberley Process;

—  continue to expand the programme of periodic spot checks on industry.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

  75.  Amnesty International welcomes the UK government's commitment to change the national contact point for the OECD Guidelines, which has been widely recognised as being in need of reform. Amnesty International also welcomes the UK government's commitment to "provide clearer guidance on how complaints will be handled". Amnesty International urges the UK government to ensure that the new decision making procedures are clear and transparent and to provide an effective mechanism for determining whether a breach of the Guidelines has occurred on a case by case basis.

WOMEN'S RIGHTS (PAGES 261-264)

  76.  Amnesty International notes the UK government's continued promotion of women's human rights in the international fora and in particular welcomes its efforts to maintain and strengthen the language on contested areas of women's human rights such as sexual and reproductive health rights at the UN Commission of the Status of Women in 2006.

  74.  Amnesty International is, however, concerned that the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was unable to examine the fifth periodic report of the UK in 2004 due to a backlog and may be unable to consider it until 2008. This extremely lengthy delay compromises the ability of both the CEDAW Committee and civil society to scrutinise the degree to which the UK government is meeting its obligations under CEDAW and 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.

Trafficking (pages 246-247)

  77.  Amnesty International welcomes the efforts of the UK government in supporting both prevention and law enforcement initiatives, both for women and children, in a number of source and transit countries including Albania, Kosovo, Ukraine, Thailand and the Philippines.

  78.  In the UK, Amnesty International also welcomes the success of Operation Pentameter, the creation of the UK Human Trafficking Centre in October 2006 and the proposal for a UK action plan on trafficking. However Amnesty International remains deeply concerned at the continued lack of protection for victims of all forms of trafficking-related exploitation in the UK and believes that the gaps in protection will not be met by the above initiatives.

  79.  In particular, Amnesty International wishes to draw the attention of the Committee to the following gaps in prosecution, identification and protection:

—  the absence of prosecutions for offences arising out of forced labour or domestic servitude;

—  the absence of a comprehensive UK-wide system of identification and referrals as recommended by the OSCE;

—  the continued failure to fund and monitor a UK-wide system of accredited specialist support and accommodation for all victims of trafficking, with the exception of the Home Office funded POPPY Project which has 35 bed spaces for women who have escaped forced prostitution within the last 30 days;

—  the extremely limited access to appropriate health care for the majority of victims of trafficking, especially those who have experienced sexual exploitation and/or physical and sexual violence;

—  the prosecution, detention and removal of some victims of trafficking;

—  the absence of a system of formal risk assessment by immigration authorities in respect of all persons suspected of being trafficked before they are removed from the UK;

—  the absence of immigration protections (such as reflection periods and residence permits) for those victims who are unable to claim asylum but require some form of leave to remain for welfare, medical or compassionate grounds.

  80.  Amnesty International believes that the current approach of the UK government to trafficking is not, contrary to the statement of the FCO in its report, victim centred. Amnesty International supports the findings of the inquiry by the Joint Committee of Human Rights into Trafficking that providing victims with greater rights does not act as a pull factor for illegal immigration or bogus claims, but in fact strengthens law enforcement against traffickers as evidenced by the model of victim protection provided in Italy.

  81.  The Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which has already been signed by thirty four member states including Germany, France and Italy, provides necessary and enforceable rights to all victims of trafficking, including access to a minimum 30 day reflection period and the right to necessary support and accommodation. The UK government has not signed nor signalled an intention to sign the Convention.

  82.   Amnesty International believes that the UK government should use the opportunity of the bicentennial of the abolition of slavery to provide protection to all victims of contemporary forms of slavery in the UK by signing the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the majority of respondents to the Home Office consultation on its proposed UK Action Plan on Trafficking.

DEATH PENALTY (PAGES 190-195)83.  Amnesty International welcomes the government's continued abolitionist stance on the death penalty worldwide as a key element of the UK's human rights policy. We welcome the abolition of the death penalty in the Philippines, where over 1,200 death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment in April 2006 in what was thought to be the world's largest ever mass commutation. In early August 2006, the government of Jordan also announced that it had introduced draft legislation reducing the number of crimes carrying the death sentence. The total number of abolitionist countries in law or practice is now 129 with 68 retentionist countries remaining.

  84.  Amnesty International welcomes the UK government's continued commitment to the reduction in the number of countries permitting the execution of juvenile offenders. We continue to focus our efforts on those countries that allow for the execution of child offenders and those where the execution of persons below the age of 18 years old is reported to take place. In particular, we are currently focusing our efforts on Iran and Pakistan. In Pakistan, Mutabar Khan was reportedly aged 16 when he was arrested in 1996 but was not permitted to benefit from the Presidential Commutation Order of 2001 which overturned the death sentences of all juveniles then on death row, owing to a dispute about his age. This is a worrying development in that Mutabar Khan was the first child offender to be executed in Pakistan since 2001.  Since the beginning of 2005, we estimate that up to 11 child offenders have been executed in Iran. Amnesty International continues to work towards the implementation of legislation in Iran which would prohibit the use of the death penalty for offences committed by young persons. Amnesty International looks forward to continued pressure from the UK government to achieve an end to this practice, with a particular emphasis on those countries that have not yet implemented legislation making the execution of juvenile offenders illegal in accordance with international law.

  85.  Other issues of concern include continued sentences of death by stoning in Iran, which violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. In September 2006, Amnesty International reported that up to nine women and two men are currently under sentence of death by stoning in the country. Also of note is the sharp and very serious rise of executions carried out by the Iraqi authorities in Iraq. Reports suggest that there are more than 200 people in prison in Iraq awaiting execution and it is estimated that at least 65 people have been executed since the reimposition of the death penalty in 2004.  Amnesty International is also committed to working towards the abolition of the death penalty in China. In 2004, a senior member of the National People's Congress estimated that approximately 10,000 persons are executed in the country each year. Despite new legislation under which the Supreme Court will review all death penalty verdicts in China, we continue to believe that persons facing the death penalty in China are unlikely to receive a fair trial. Amnesty International asks that the UK government pay particular attention to the application of the death penalty in Iran, Iraq and China.

  86.  Amnesty International continues to campaign on the case of Kenny Richey, a dual UK/US national on death row in Ohio, USA. January 2007 will mark Kenny Richey's 20th anniversary on death row. Amnesty International looks forward to continuing to work on this case in cooperation with the FCO and recommends that the UK government make representations to the relevant authorities regarding the case of Kenny Richey at every available opportunity.

  87.  Amnesty International welcomes the spirit of co-operation in which we and a coalition of human rights organisations worked with the UK government on the case of Mirza Tahir Hussain, a dual UK/Pakistan national on death row in Pakistan for 18 years who was released and returned to the UK in November 2006. We look forward to continued cooperation with the FCO on cases of British nationals and dual nationals on death row worldwide and recommend that the UK government develop a transparent, consistent and codified strategy for representation and intervention on all cases of British nationals and dual nationals on death row worldwide.

ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS (PAGES 233-247)

  88.  Amnesty International is glad to note that the FCO report views all human rights as universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and that economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) are of equal status with civil and political rights. We also welcome the considerable resources that the UK government devotes to development assistance overseas.

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (page 234)

  89.  Amnesty International is pleased to note the efforts that officials from across Whitehall have been making to examine options for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OPICESCR). The development of such a mechanism is currently under consideration by the UN Open-ended Working Group on an OPICESCR and would enable individuals and groups of individuals to petition the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in cases of breaches of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) by state parties, in line with a similar ability afforded individuals in cases of breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As such the OPICESCR represents a valuable instrument in strengthening the role of ESC rights and their enforceability in international law and would contribute to a culture of understanding that ESC rights are human rights and as such people should be entitled to claim them and seek effective remedies for their violation. It would also allow for a more extensive and in-depth framework of enquiry in specific cases and build up a body of case-law which can be used as a reference in other situations.

  90.  Unfortunately, as the report states, the UK government continues to question however whether an Optional Protocol mechanism for ESC rights is appropriate. Although it is stated that it supports moves towards drafting an OPICESCR, given that it recognises that many countries are in favour of the protocol, this support was only given at the meeting of the UN Working Group in 2006 on the condition that all options regarding the form and scope of the OPICESCR were considered. What is not made clear is that "all options" includes an "a la carte" approach allowing states to limit the application of the communications procedure to certain provisions of the ICESCR. It also includes a "reservation" approach allowing a state party to exclude the application of the communications procedure from one or several provisions of the ICESCR and a "limited" approach, allowing an author to bring communications in relation to only some parts of the ICESCR or some provisions of the ICESCR. In our view, all of these options would be damaging outcomes for the future of ESC rights—and risk derailing the whole process of their protection.

  91.  Amnesty International asks that the UK government supports international efforts to develop an OPICESCR at the next session of the UN Working Group in 2007 and in particular, an OPICESR which:

—  clearly addresses violations of the ESC rights enshrined in the ICESCR;

—  extends to violations of the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil rights. ie. it should recognise states obligations to: (a) refrain from action which interferes with the enjoyment of ICESCR rights or obstructs the ability to realise such rights: (b) ensure that other actors (individuals, corporations, or others within their sphere of influence) refrain from action which directly or indirectly interferes with the enjoyment of ICESCR rights; and (c) takes steps in line with the maximum available resources to achieve progressively the full realisation of ICESCR rights;

—  provides for a complaints and inquiry procedure;

—  allows individuals and groups of individuals who claim to have been victims of violations to submit a communication;

—  allows representatives of individuals or groups of individuals to file communications on their behalf;

—  provides for a monitoring body, which on receiving a communication is able to call for interim measures to avoid irreparable harm;

—  contains a provision to preclude states parties from making reservations to the protocol.

AFGHANISTAN (PAGES 30-36, 227, 257)

  92.  The UK's military commitment to Afghanistan, including in respect to the successive Provincial Reconstruction Teams, is a daily reminder of the UK's commitment to the establishment of a viable Afghan state. However, whilst highlighting the "formidable challenges" that the Afghan government and international community have to meet in the face of progress there, the FCO report fails to sufficiently highlight the severity of the security situation. Lawlessness and insecurity continue to negatively affect the rule of law and the implementation of human rights standards across the country, not merely in the south and east. Amnesty International continues to urge the transitional government and donor countries to increase security throughout Afghanistan.

  93.  Amnesty International welcomes the UK government's close work with the Afghan government to bring war criminals to justice. Amnesty International also welcomes the work undertaken by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) and recognises its value, in particular the results of "A Call for Justice", examining measures to address past human rights violations. Amnesty International calls upon the UK government to urge the Afghan government to present parliament with legislation that will ensure continuity in the effective and independent functioning of the AIHRC.

  94.  Whilst mentioning the "vibrancy" of the September 2005 parliamentary and provincial council election campaigns, the report fails to highlight concerns over the fact that many perpetrators of human rights violations and war crimes still enjoy impunity. This was demonstrated by the candidature of perpetrators of abuses in the elections and the appointment of individuals with well-known records of human rights abuse to various posts, including as governors or heads of provincial police forces. Amnesty International calls for further steps to be taken to ensure that the Transitional Justice Action Plan is implemented so that truth, justice and reparations for past human rights violations are attained.

  95.  The report outlines UK policy which includes being "mindful of the human rights of those individuals" [handed over to Afghan custody]. However, it does not address the serious shortcomings of the system of detention employed by Afghan security forces. For many years, Amnesty International has raised concerns about the use of torture and ill-treatment by Afghan security forces, including the National Security Directorate. Amnesty International calls on the UK authorities to fully comply with international law in the course of its operations and to cooperate with the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the AIHRC in doing this, with particular regard to arrest and detention procedures, including the handing over of detainees to Afghan custody. The UK government should also impress upon the Afghan government the importance of protecting the human rights of those in their custody and the need for independent and impartial investigations of abuse.

  96.  Amnesty International continues to be very concerned about reports of torture and ill treatment in detention, and the failure of members of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) to conduct genuinely transparent, impartial and independent investigations into all allegations of abuse of detainees by its forces. US forces continue to arbitrarily detain hundreds of people beyond the reach of courts and their own families, UN human rights experts, the AIHRC and, in some instances, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Amnesty International calls on the UK government to work within NATO to create a joint body together with its Afghan partners and UNAMA to pursue justice for Afghan nationals whose human rights may have been violated by ISAF in Afghanistan.

  97.  The report downplays the impact of military action on civilians. Amnesty International remains concerned that the military operations undertaken by ISAF have not taken all necessary precautions in the conduct of such attacks. Aerial bombardments carried out as part of ISAF military operations have, as acknowledged by ISAF commanders, resulted in the killing of civilians. These attacks may have failed to discriminate between civilian and military targets in breach of international humanitarian law. Amnesty International urges the UK government to work with its NATO partners, the Afghan government and the AIHRC so that those who have suffered in the course of ISAF's operations may have their claims investigated and, if so determined, remedied in full.

  98.  The section on women's rights states that "there has been a marked improvement [in women's rights] over the last five years"—referring to voting in the parliamentary elections as an example of progress. Whilst some progress has been made, both women voters and women candidates suffered actual or threatened violence and intimidation during the election period in 2005. Indeed, women continue to face systematic and widespread violence and discrimination in both public and private spheres, including discriminatory customary practices. In June 2005 the government established an inter-ministerial council aimed at combating violence against women, yet few legal provisions to protect women have been promulgated, and fewer implemented. In 2006 there was a rise in cases of "honour" killings, abduction and rape by regional commanders, and in the practice of self-immolation. The UK government should continue to urge the Afghan government to prosecute all perpetrators of such crimes in order to send a clear message that violence against women will not be tolerated.

  99.  Amnesty International welcomes the UK government raising its opposition to the death penalty with the Afghan government. In 2005-06 at least 24 death sentences were passed by lower and appeal courts. Amnesty International did not learn of any executions. The UK government should continue to urge its Afghan counterpart to commute all death sentences and abolish the death penalty in law and practice.

  100.  Armed groups such as the Taliban, resurgent in the southern region, have killed hundreds of civilians including aid workers, election officials and clerics. Most of these killings resulted from suicide attacks and roadside bombs. Amnesty International strongly condemns all attacks against civilians, including kidnappings and executions by insurgent groups. Such killings and other related abuses amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

ALGERIA (PAGES 132, 150-151 AND 279) 101.  The report does not include a separate section on Algeria, but comments on the country in the context of Europe and Democracy and Freedom. This is surprising given the range of very serious human rights concerns. Amnesty International is concerned that the report downplays the serious human rights situation in Algeria. We are also dismayed by the UK government's selective use of Amnesty International's material in response to parliamentary questions to support a much more positive situation than we are able to confirm.

  102.  The report mentions the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation and the concerns of some of its critics but does not take a position on the issue. In February 2006, amnesty laws were introduced entrenching impunity for the security forces for crimes committed during the internal conflict and widening previous measures of pardon and exemption from prosecution granted to armed groups. The Algerian authorities have generally failed to investigate serious human rights abuses. Although a state-appointed advisory commission completed its inquiries into "disappearances" in 2005, it was not mandated to clarify the fate of those who "disappeared" or to identify those responsible and its report has not been made public. The UK government should urge its Algerian counterpart to uphold the rights of all victims of serious human rights abuses to truth, justice and full reparation.

  103.  The report highlights Algeria's criminalisation of torture, but does not mention the continued use of torture and other ill-treatment. Amnesty International is extremely concerned that torture continues to be used against suspects accused of "belonging to a terrorist group". Documented torture methods include beatings, electric shocks and chiffon (the forced ingestion of dirty water, urine or chemicals). The vast majority of torture allegations are not investigated. Amnesty International would ask what steps the UK government are taking to address persistent and serious abuses in Algeria, particularly the use of torture against detainees accused of terrorism.

  104.  The report lists a number of welcome developments with regard to women's rights. However, while changes to the law have gradually improved the legal status of women, changes to the Family Code fall far short of offering women equal status with men and discriminatory provisions remain. Many women suffer extreme economic hardship as a result of the "disappearance" of a male relative or divorce, compounded by laws denying access to pensions, savings and property. The UK government should urge its Algerian counterpart to take steps to protect women from violence and address widespread legal and economic discrimination.

  105.  Algeria has tightened its laws on freedom of expression. Journalists, civil society activists and government critics continue to face harassment and intimidation. The Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation makes public criticism of the security forces punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment. Amnesty International is concerned at the impact this will have on anyone seeking to comment on human rights violations or to lodge formal complaints about them. The UK government should urge Algeria to review the various regulations that govern the media and stop the harassment of civil society activists.

CHINA (PAGES 42-49, 130, 190, 229, 245, 250)

  106.  The FCO report entry on China provokes a profound sense of déja" vu—a barely changed list of concerns from 2005 and the same faint glimmers of progress to come in terms of China's perceived willingness to engage with international human rights institutions and develop the rule of law. In our view, China's human rights record remains dire. Neither the UK and EU-China "human rights dialogues" nor the approaching Olympics are giving rise to significant changes or improvements on the ground.

  107.  Amnesty International concurs wholeheartedly with the Committee's assessment made last year that the UK-China human rights dialogue appears to have made glacial progress. The FCO report is also candid in its assessment that progress in most areas covered by the dialogue is either slow or non-existent. Amnesty International considers that the UK government should develop a dialogue with specific benchmarks against which to measure progress on human rights abuses by China within an agreed timeframe, and retain the option of reviewing the dialogue approach if this is not yielding significant results. This should be accompanied by public criticism where necessary. We also encourage the UK government to continue its efforts to press the Chinese authorities for a timetable for the ratification of the ICCPR, and for the lifting of China's reservation to Article 8.1A of the ICESCR (the right to form trade unions and join the trade union of choice).

  108.  The death penalty continues to be applicable for some 68 offences in Chinese criminal law, including nonviolent crimes such as economic crimes and drug offences where the circumstances are "serious". Increasingly, deaths sentences are being carried out by lethal injection using "mobile execution vans"—a practice that could facilitate the extraction of organs from executed prisoners. In March 2006, the Chinese Ministry of Health released new regulations on organ transplants that ban the buying and selling of organs—and stress that organs may only be removed with the written consent of the donor. Amnesty International considers those faced with the trauma/anguish of imminent execution are not in a position to provide such consent. Secrecy surrounding the application of the death penalty makes it impossible to independently verify whether such consent is given. The UK government should urge China to reduce the number of capital offences, especially with regard to non-violent crimes and introduce a moratorium, as a first step towards abolition.

  109.  The FCO report notes that attempts by the authorities to replace Re-education Through Labour (RTL) with new legislation known as the "Illegal Behaviour Correction Law" (IBCL) have stalled. In May 2006, Amnesty International published a memorandum to the Chinese authorities analysing the substance of the new law. We concluded that while the law contains some improvements compared with RTL, it still falls short of international standards in several crucial respects, in particular the failure to transfer responsibility for imposing punishments from the police to an independent court or tribunal. Amnesty International recommended that the authorities abandon attempts to introduce a new law, and instead bring all offences punishable with deprivation of liberty within the scope of the Criminal Law. However, there has been no evidence of any further moves towards reforming or abolishing RTL over recent months. The UK government should strongly urge the Chinese government to abolish "Re-education through Labour" and abolish vaguely worded clauses in the Criminal Law that are frequently used to target human rights defenders.

  110.  Chinese human rights defenders continue to face severe obstacles in their attempts to draw attention to ongoing abuses, some of which are directly related to preparations for the Olympics. Amnesty International has raised serious concerns over the imprisonment of Ye Guozhu after he sought permission to organise a demonstration in Beijing with other alleged victims of forced evictions due to construction in preparation for the Olympic Games. Ye Guozhu continues to serve his four-year sentence in Chaobai prison after being convicted of "picking quarrels and stirring up trouble" by the No.2 Beijing Municipal Intermediate Court in December 2004. According to reliable reports received by Amnesty International, it has recently emerged that Ye Guozhu had been tortured prior to conviction. Amnesty International asks that the UK government continues to express its concern for the position of human rights defenders in general and for individual prisoners of conscience.

  111.  As the FCO report indicates, the crackdown on individual journalists, newspapers and websites in China has continued over the last year, raising serious doubts about China's commitment to ensure "complete media freedom" during the Beijing Olympics. Broad and vaguely defined "state secrets" and "subversion" charges in the Criminal Law continue to be used to arbitrarily detain and prosecute journalists, editors and internet users. While foreign journalists are generally detained for short periods and may face expulsion, Chinese journalists and writers often face much harsher treatment for reporting on issues deemed sensitive by the authorities.[7] Amnesty International urges the UK government to continue to raise the issue of restrictions on media freedom and to ask the Chinese authorities to ensure that "complete media freedom" is a reality by 2008.

  112.  Amnesty International has also documented the role that some Internet companies have played in facilitating or colluding in the practice of censorship and clamping down on freedom of expression. In China, Yahoo has provided the authorities with private and confidential information about its users, including personal data that led to the conviction of two journalists who Amnesty International considers to be prisoners of conscience. Microsoft has admitted shutting down a "blog" on the basis of a government request and Google has launched a censored version of their search engine in China. Amnesty International considers these internet companies should: publish all agreements with the Chinese government that have implications for censorship of information and suppression of dissent; publicly commit to honouring the freedom of expression provision in the Chinese constitution and lobby for the release of all cyber-dissidents and journalists imprisoned for the peaceful and legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression; and make public which words and phrases are filtered in China as well as around the world, and explain how these are chosen.

  113.  Chinese military and defence industrial enterprises have established several joint ventures and licensed production agreements with Canadian, European, Russian and US companies. A range of military and dual-use equipment has been supplied to China, or developed by Chinese arms companies with assistance from European and US companies. This is in spite of the EU and US arms embargoes on China imposed since 1989. The UK government should work to ensure the EU arms embargo remains in place until significant human rights progress is made in China.

  114.  Amnesty International is extremely concerned about the scale of China's arms supplies to countries with a record of gross human rights violations, the complete lack of transparency surrounding Chinese arms transfers and the government's continued opposition to tough and enforceable international arms controls. Chinese weapons have helped sustain brutal conflicts, grave human rights violations and criminal violence such as in Sudan, Nepal, Myanmar, Liberia and South Africa. The UK government should urge China to strengthen its transparency over arms transfers and the enforcement of the existing national legislation by reporting annually and publicly on all military, security and police transfers.

COLOMBIA (PAGES 49-54)115.  Amnesty International welcomes the fact that the FCO includes Colombia as one of their 20 major countries of concern in its report and agrees that "the internal armed conflict continues to inflict severe suffering across Colombia". The Committee scrutinised the UK government's policies towards Colombia last year relatively briefly. We urge them to do so in more detail this year.

  116.  Despite a paramilitary agreed ceasefire at the end of 2002 and the implementation of a controversial paramilitary demobilisation process regulated through the Justice and Peace Law (JPL) in 2005, more than 3,000 killings and "disappearances" have been attributed to paramilitaries. The government claims that more than 30,000 paramilitaries have demobilized, but Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concerns over the fact that many of these groups continue to operate, or have regrouped as criminal gangs and new paramilitary groups. Both the FCO report and the Organisation of American States acknowledge that there is already strong evidence to suggest that some demobilised paramilitaries are doing so. Amnesty International is concerned that rather than contributing to peace, the demobilisation process is continuing the internal conflict by "recycling" combatants under another guise. We seriously question EU and UK government support for the JPL which we believe is contributing to impunity in Colombia and failing to meet international standards in providing effective truth, justice and reparation to victims.

  117.  Amnesty International, the UN and others have repeatedly highlighted concerns over the close links between paramilitaries and the security forces, the intelligence services, and public officials. The UK government acknowledges these links but believes they are not part of an orchestrated plan. However, in 2006 further evidence of these links materialized. In November 2006, at least nine congressmen belonging to pro-government parties were linked by the judicial authorities to army-backed paramilitary groups. Recent Colombian press reports suggest that the Office of the Attorney General is reviewing more than 100 cases of alleged collusion between paramilitaries and political figures, members of the public and judicial administrations and the security forces. Several paramilitary leaders have claimed that they control around one-third of the national Congress. Amnesty International believes such examples further exemplify why the UK should question the government-backed demobilisation process and should vociferously press the Colombian government to take vigorous action to investigate the links between public officials and paramilitary groups.

  118.  Colombia remains the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. Amnesty International welcomed President Uribe's commitment to supporting trades unionists in his inauguration speech but remains deeply concerned at the lack of investigation on behalf of human rights defenders and the fact that the military justice system continues to assume cases involving alleged human rights violations by the security forces, despite a 1997 ruling by the Constitutional Court stipulating that human rights cases must be investigated by the civilian justice system. The UK Embassy in Colombia must continue to effectively implement the EU Guidelines on human rights defenders, monitoring cases, attending trials and welcoming HRDs to the Embassy. The Embassy should consider appointing a full time member of staff dedicated to human rights.

  119.  Columbia has repeatedly failed to fully implement the human rights recommendations of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which provide a blueprint for addressing the human rights crisis in the country. Neither has it instigated a country-wide human rights action plan. The FCO report states the "the Colombian government should make it a priority to implement the recommendations" and goes on to state that "we have offered them practical assistance to achieve this". Amnesty International and others have repeatedly urged the UK government to do this by fulfilling their commitment to developing an EU monitoring process of the Colombians' progress. However the UK government refused to invite the representative of the Colombian Office of the UNHCHR to make a presentation to the European Commission working group on Latin America, or another forum, to address ways that this might be achieved. We urge the UK government and its EU partners to overcome any obstacles put forward by the Colombian government to monitor its implementation of the UN recommendations.

  120.  The UK continues to provide military assistance to Colombia, despite the ongoing links between security forces and paramilitary groups. We welcomed the Committee's reference to this issue last year and look forward to a more detailed explanation of UK military assistance to Colombia in the UK government's reports on Strategic Export Controls. We are disappointed that the FCO report provides little information on UK assistance, such as judicial and police training provided by the MoD, as we believe greater transparency on this is crucial.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (PAGES 57-61, PAGE 205)

  121.  Amnesty International agrees with the FCO report that "despite gradual progress... the human rights situation remains poor". Indeed on the ground, the human rights situation remains as the committee described it last year: "appalling". The momentous nationwide democratic elections passed relatively peacefully, but the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) remains a microcosm of many of Amnesty International's major global campaigns—including an uncontrolled arms trade and military and security situation, violence against women on an unprecedented scale, and the unregulated exploitation of mineral wealth to fund the conflict. Indeed, despite recent international focus on the elections, Amnesty International fears that in many ways the DRC is a forgotten conflict. We were pleased therefore to have supported the recent visit of the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes.

  122.  The FCO report emphasises the valuable work being undertaken by the EU Police Mission in Kinshasa (EUPOL) and the EU Security Sector Reform Mission (EUSEC) in trying to reform the government security forces. However, the need for a professional and truly unified army remains urgent and must be a major priority for the incoming government and the international community. Of particular concern is the high number of human rights violations being committed by the newly-created government army, the Armed Forces of the DRC (FARDC). Moreover, no effort is being made to prevent suspected perpetrators of serious human rights violations from joining the new army. Amnesty International believes that the reform programme must include, as a minimum, an independent vetting mechanism to exclude suspected perpetrators from entry to the FARDC until the allegations against them can be independently investigated, and training for all ranks in international humanitarian and human rights law. Amnesty International also calls on the UK to put pressure on the new government to curb human rights violations by the FARDC by publicly denouncing and demonstrating a zero tolerance for violations by the military.

  123.  The report outlines the ongoing integration of the Congolese army. Greater attention needs also to be paid to reforming the police and other security services. Acts of political repression during the elections by unreformed security services, some under the direct control of the President, do not bode well for the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms in post-election DRC. All branches of the security apparatus must be brought under effective government, as opposed to private, control, with clearly defined mandates and divisions of responsibility. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to support the continued presence in the country of adequate numbers of UN Mission in the Congo (MONUC) peacekeepers, at least until such a time as the DRC government security forces demonstrate convincingly that they are capable of protecting the Congolese civilian population and respecting human rights.

  124.  The national programme for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) into civilian life of an estimated 150,000 fighters—including an estimated 30,000 children—has gained momentum, but continues to suffer serious shortcomings. In October, Amnesty International published a report on the DDR of child soldiers,[8] which found that thousands of children are still with the armed groups or are otherwise unaccounted for in the DDR programme. In particular, large numbers of girls are missing. Amnesty International is also concerned that many demobilized fighters, children and adults, are not being supported with meaningful reintegration programmes once returned to their communities. Many children, especially, experience high levels of poverty and social or family exclusion, which leaves them acutely vulnerable to re-recruitment in certain areas. Amnesty International believes that one of the most effective tools in countering the re-recruitment of children would be for the incoming DRC government and international community to prioritize investment in the state education system and to realize as quickly as possible the human right to free elementary education up to the age of 14, without detriment to the availability or accessibility of secondary and other levels of education.

  125.  In September 2006, Control Arms Campaign[9] researchers visiting the Ituri District of eastern DRC obtained evidence that small arms and ammunition recovered from armed groups in the district had been manufactured by China, Greece, Russia, South Africa, Serbia and the US. The Control Arms Campaign believes it is likely that these weapons and bullets entered the Ituri District from neighbouring countries in contravention of EU and UN arms embargoes, illustrating the need for the UK to continue to push for an Arms Trade Treaty to establish global standards for arms sales based on international law. Amnesty International is concerned that the fact that weapons and bullets are entering the Ituri district illustrates the need for governments, including the UK, to press the DRC and neighbouring countries to respect EU and UN embargoes, and to support MONUC in increasing its capacity to enforce the embargoes.

  126.  At the national level, despite systematic violations of human rights, few suspected perpetrators have been brought to justice. At the international level, Amnesty International welcomed the arrest on war crimes charges and the transfer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) of armed group leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. However, Amnesty International believes that this positive development needs to be followed by other ICC investigations and prosecutions of other alleged perpetrators of human rights violations in the DRC, including those on the side of the government and those in armed political groups. Amnesty International hopes that arrest of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo will also act as a catalyst for the development of an effective national justice system, which addresses crimes committed in the course of the conflict and ensures full reparations for the victims.

  127.  The FCO report commits itself to funding various sexual health projects and clinics. Amnesty International welcomes this commitment but also believes that there is a need for a coordinated international and national response to the medical emergency caused by large-scale rape in eastern DRC as well as other emergencies, among them the high rates of child and maternal mortality, and HIV/AIDS. Amnesty International urges the UK government to support plans currently being developed to reform and rehabilitate the national health system, especially in the areas most blighted by conflict.

INDIA (PAGES 194, 212, 220, 251)

  128.  India is not listed as one of the FCO's major countries of concern. Nevertheless, there are selected references to the human rights situation in India throughout the report and Amnesty International does have a number of concerns about the human rights record of India that it wishes to draw to the attention of the Committee.

  129.  Perpetrators of human rights violations continue to enjoy impunity in India. It is widely acknowledged that the criminal justice system is in crisis despite the government's claims internationally that it has a strong judiciary. Quasi-governmental bodies, such as the National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women, lack the necessary mandate, resources and power to adequately and effectively deal with reports of human rights violations. Torture in police custody is endemic across India and is regularly used by the police to extract confessions. A nexus of corruption, nepotism, political interference and lack of political will, amongst other factors, continues to impede the delivery of justice, particularly to marginalised groups, including indigenous peoples, dalits, and minority religious groups. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to urge the government of India to tackle impunity at all levels of the justice system, and with particular reference to the abuses perpetrated against marginalised groups.

  130.  Amnesty International is concerned at the undermining in recent months of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Recent amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 (PHRA) (which governs the NHRC) have failed to include various recommendations made by civil society groups as well as a government constituted committee set up to review the PHRA. One of these recommendations is that the NHRC be allowed to independently investigate human rights abuses by the army or the paramilitary (at present it can only request a report from central government, thus confining it to the government's version of events or more usually, the version of events given by the alleged perpetrators themselves). Thus, the NHRC is rendered incapable of effectively combating impunity for abuses committed by the armed forces, particularly those forces operating under special legislation in areas of conflict, including Jammu and Kashmir and the north east of India. Amnesty International urges the UK government to make representations to the government of India to pass amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act allowing the National Human Rights Commission to investigate human rights abuses independently and without prior sanctioning by the central government.

  131.  The FCO report draws attention to the human rights abuses that continue to be perpetrated by Indian security forces and armed opposition groups in Jammu and Kashmir and the north east of India. Members of the security forces and the police allegedly are regularly responsible for torture, rape, deaths in custody, "disappearances", and extrajudicial executions. In Jammu and Kashmir, Amnesty International has further noted an ostensible increase in attacks based on identity, with Hindus and Sikhs being reportedly killed by extremist Islamic militants—thought to be part of a strategy to communalise the conflict. Of the dozens of reported violations, only a handful of high profile cases have been investigated and, to Amnesty International's knowledge, rarely have these resulted in the perpetrators being prosecuted. Victims of human rights abuses or their relatives who try to pursue judicial redress may face persistent obstructions and delays. Amnesty International asks that the UK government continue to raise its concerns on this issue with the Indian authorities and insist that, whilst the government of India faces grave challenges in Jammu and Kashmir, it cannot disregard its obligations under international human rights law.

  132.  Amnesty International has for many years expressed its concern at the use of draconian security legislation in India, enacted at both the central as well as state level, which has invariably and disproportionately been used against peaceful political opponents, human rights defenders, minorities and marginalised sections of Indian society. Amnesty International, along with numerous other human rights organisations have consistently raised concerns about the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) which is currently in force in Jammu and Kashmir and the north east of India. The Prime Minister of India has recently said that the Home Ministry is working on "modifying existing provisions or inserting new provisions" in the AFSPA so as to give "due regard to the protection of basic human and civil rights". Despite these amendments, Amnesty International still believes that the AFSPA violates a number of international human rights treaties to which India is a party. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to make representations to the government of India about the need for security legislation to meet international human rights standards.

  133.  As the FCO report states, there is little evidence to suggest that India is inclined towards either abolishing or imposing a moratorium on the death penalty. Seventy-seven people were sentenced to death last year and Amnesty International is aware that hundreds of prisoners have been on death row for years. Overall, information relating to current and past death sentences and executions in India remains sketchy, despite recent recommendations by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions to the effect that secrecy regarding the number of executions, or the numbers or identities of those detailed on death row, is incompatible with international human rights standards and is in itself a human rights violation. We are concerned that given the current political climate in India, the demand for a hard-hitting response (ie. death sentences) to crime, including rape, murder of minors and particularly "terrorist" violence, is only growing. We urge the UK government to call on the government of India to institute an immediate moratorium on executions and to publish accurate and up to date death penalty statistics.

IRAQ (PAGES 66-77)

  134.  As in our previous submission to the Committee, Amnesty International would question the broadly positive tone of the FCO report on Iraq. While we welcome the assistance the UK is providing to Iraq on human rights matters, which the report outlines, we are concerned that the report downplays the very serious and broad range of human rights abuses in the country.

  135.  There has been an extremely serious deterioration in the security situation. It remains characterised by armed violence and widespread and serious attacks against civilians carried out by armed groups, militias and criminal gangs. "disappearances", kidnappings and extra-judicial killings are reported to be increasing. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been uprooted as a result of the sectarian killings, and a large number of Iraqis have sought refuge outside the country. Amnesty International strongly condemns all attacks against civilians, including indiscriminate suicide and other bomb attacks, kidnappings, torture and executions.

  136.  The report outlines the system of detention. However, it does not address the serious shortcomings of the system of detention employed by the Multinational Force (MNF). Thousands of people continue to be held without charge or trial by the MNF. The MNF has established procedures which deprive detainees of human rights guaranteed in international human rights law and standards. In particular, the MNF denies detainees the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court. Some detainees have been held for over two years without any effective remedy or recourse; others have been released without explanation, apology or reparation after months in detention. All those detained in Iraq should be charged and tried, fairly and promptly before an independent and impartial court, or released.

  137.  Amnesty International is concerned that the MNF has failed to put in place measures that respect basic rights of detainees and safeguard them from torture and other abuses. The report states that allegations of abuse by coalition forces against detainees in Iraq have been thoroughly investigated. In our previous submission, we outlined the inadequacies of US investigations into abuse. We are also concerned at the UK's failure to establish prompt, independent, thorough and effective investigations into alleged human rights violations, and to ensure adequate reparations to victims and their families. In December 2005, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales found that the system for investigating deaths at the hands of UK armed forces personnel was seriously deficient, including in its lack of independence from the commanding officers, and it needed to be scrutinised.[10] The UK government must ensure that detainees' rights are respected in full and that all allegations of torture and other abuses are promptly, thoroughly and independently investigated.

  138.  There is evidence of widespread torture and ill-treatment by Iraqi forces, in large part perpetrated by militias that have infiltrated the police and security forces. Methods of torture include hanging by the arms, burning with cigarettes, severe beatings, the use of electric shocks, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and sexual abuse. Amnesty International is concerned that such cases are not being properly investigated, that the results of investigations are not being made public and that those responsible are not being held to account. The UK government should impress on its Iraqi counterpart the importance of protecting human rights and proper investigation of allegations of abuse. The Iraqi authorities should invite international experts to join investigations of allegations of torture by Iraqi security forces.

  139.  The report was published before the execution of Saddam Hussein. Amnesty International deplores the execution of Saddam Hussein following the confirmation of his sentence by the Iraqi Appeals Court on 26 December 2006. However, the abhorrent pictures of Saddam Hussein's execution are just the tip of the iceberg, as Iraq moves back towards a culture of widespread executions. Despite an extensive section on judicial reform and the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT, known as the Iraqi High Tribunal, IHT), the report makes only brief mention of the death penalty. Amnesty International condemns the reinstatement of the death penalty by the Iraqi interim government and the Transitional National Assembly's extension of the use of the death penalty. We deplore the sharp rise in executions and are disturbed by the fact that exact figures for convictions and executions are not readily available and are not always made public. Confessions are routinely extracted under torture and Amnesty International is aware of a number of cases in which defendants were sentenced to death after unfair trials. Amnesty International is deeply concerned by the massive surge in executions in Iraq and calls on the UK government to push its Iraqi counterpart to commute all death sentences and abolish the death penalty in law and practice.

  140.  The report contains a sizeable section on the IHT, including the significant UK assistance given to it. However, it fails to adequately address the shortcomings of the IHT and the trial of Saddam Hussein and his co-accused. We outlined some of our general concerns about the IHT in our previous submission. Amnesty International believes that Saddam Hussein's trial was seriously flawed, calling into question the capacity of the IHT to administer justice fairly and in conformity with international standards. Political interference undermined the independence and impartiality of the court; the Iraqi authorities failed to take adequate measures to protect all those involved with the tribunal; and basic defence rights were not respected. The UK government should urge the Iraqi government to make urgent changes to ensure that future trials before the IHT conform to international standards for fair trial, possibly by considering adding international judges to the IHT or referring cases to an international tribunal.

  141.  The report does not mention the human rights situation in northern Iraq. Amnesty International is concerned about prosecutions of critics of the Kurdish authorities and the threat these pose to freedom of expression as well as evidence of incommunicado detention and ill treatment in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. There have also been incidents of the use of force against demonstrators. The UK government should urge the Kurdish authorities to ensure full protection of the right to freedom of expression and review and amend existing legislation which criminalises the peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

  142.  The report outlines some of the welcome advances made by women in Iraq. However, we share the report's concerns about violence against women in the country. Women and girls continue to face threats, attacks and harassment. Their freedoms have been severely curtailed as a result of the security situation. Many women and girls have come under pressure to wear the hijab or Islamic veil and change their behaviour. Women are also being targeted by armed groups and have been killed, raped and abducted. As we pointed out in our submission last year, we are also concerned that certain parts of the Iraqi constitution may be interpreted as allowing practices that discriminate against women and violate and restrict women's human rights. In addition, there are ongoing concerns over "honour killings" and domestic violence, and the failure to adequately address such crimes. The UK government should urge the Iraqi authorities to amend legislation discriminating against women and ensure that "honour crimes" and violence in the family are treated seriously.

  143.  The report contains a very brief and general section on protecting minority rights. Many of the victims of violence in Iraq appear to be targeted for sectarian reasons, because of their religious affiliation or membership of religious minorities, including the Christian and Mandaean communities. Others appear to have been targeted on account of their gender, sexual orientation or national origin, including women, Palestinian refugees, and gay men or men imputed to be gay. Amnesty International calls on the UK government to urge its Iraqi counterpart to ensure that complaints by members of minority groups are promptly, impartially and effectively investigated by an independent body.

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES (PAGES 77-84)

  144.  On the whole the FCO report addresses Amnesty International's main concerns regarding Israel and the Occupied Territories. However, its failure to address and condemn the disproportionate and indiscriminate nature of the Israeli bombardment and shelling of civilians as well as direct attacks on civilian objects in Lebanon during the July/August 2006 conflict is a most regrettable omission. Whilst the report rightly highlights Hizbollah's indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel, pointing out that some 40 Israeli civilians were killed and up to 2,000 injured, it fails to mention that some 1,000 Lebanese civilians were killed and over 4,400 injured by Israeli military strikes.

  145.  Amnesty International agrees with the report that Israeli settlements are an obstacle to peace and are illegal under international law. The report does note the expansion of existing settlements in violation of the Roadmap, but Amnesty International would add that new settlements are also being built under the pretence that they are part of existing settlements. For example, in September 2006 the Israeli government issued tenders for the construction of 700 new homes in West Bank settlements. In addition to violating international law, the settlements and related infrastructure, including the fence/wall and the network of "bypass" roads, have had disastrous consequences for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Restrictions on movement hinder the functioning of the Palestinian economy, causing increased poverty and unemployment and ultimately preventing any semblance of normal life. The UK government should demand that the Israeli authorities: bring an immediate end to the building and expansion of Israeli settlements and to the construction of the fence/wall, eighty percent of which is inside the West Bank, including in and around East Jerusalem; enact measures to evacuate settlers living there; carry out the dismantling of those sections of the fence/wall already built there; and bring an end to the regime of closures and movement restrictions as currently imposed throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

  146.  The report rightly points out that the repeated closure of the Karni crossing point has led to deterioration in the humanitarian situation in Gaza. However, it fails to mention the repeated closure for prolonged periods of the Rafah crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt that prevents any travel for the entire population of Gaza. As a result of these closures, Palestinians are left stranded on the Egyptian side of the border for days, unable to return home. Repeated closures and other restrictions on freedom of movement have contributed to shortages of medicine, food and fuel and other necessities, and to a further deterioration in the humanitarian situation. The report fails to mention that the dire humanitarian situation has been further exacerbated by the destruction by Israel of vital infrastructure, including Gaza's power station and water mains. With regard to the Gaza Strip, the UK government should demand that the Israeli government ensures freedom of movement (for persons and goods) for Palestinians between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and, so long as it continues to control the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, allows freedom of movement for Palestinians across that border.

  147.  The withholding by Israel of the custom duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the cut in aid to the PA by EU countries, including the UK, have also contributed greatly to the deteriorating situation throughout the Occupied Territories. In December 2006, Amnesty International's Secretary General, Irene Khan, visited the region and noted that despite EU aid, the humanitarian situation remained dire. The UK as a member of the EU must take measures to ensure the decision to stop funding does not adversely impact human rights. The UK government must ensure that emergency assistance essential to fulfilling fundamental human rights is never used as a bargaining tool to further political goals.

  148.  House demolitions are understated in the report. The Israeli authorities frequently demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in Area C of the occupied West Bank on the grounds that they have been built without a permit. Yet it is impossible for most Palestinians in East Jerusalem and in Area C to obtain a permit to build a home on their own land. In the past two years the Jerusalem Municipality has stepped up its demolition of Palestinian homes. Some 200 Palestinian homes have been demolished in East Jerusalem since the beginning of 2004, leaving more than 600 people homeless. The FCO report mentions that during the UK's presidency of the EU, it lobbied the Israeli government to freeze demolition orders on Palestinian houses in Silwan in East Jerusalem. We would urge the UK government to lobby the Israeli government to cancel all outstanding orders for forced evictions and demolitions of unlicensed houses and to impose a moratorium on future forced evictions and demolitions until such time as the law is amended in a manner that complies with international standards. We would also ask the UK government to urge the Israeli government to end punitive demolitions.

  149.  Whilst the report mentions the "family unification law" and states that the law "discriminates against Israelis who marry non Israelis", it fails to explain that the law explicitly denies family rights on the basis of ethnicity or national origins. The "Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law" only bars family reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories only—not for those married to nationals of other countries. It specifically targets Israeli Arabs (Palestinian citizens of Israel), who make up a fifth of Israel's population, and Palestinian Jerusalemites, for it is they who marry Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We would welcome any representations that the UK government could make urging the Israeli government to reform or repeal the "family unification law".

  150.  The report states that the "UK has repeatedly pressed the Israeli authorities at all levels to respect the rights of the Palestinians". Amnesty International has written to Prime Minister Blair asking him to raise our concerns with Prime Minister Olmert of Israel when he visited London in June 2006.  Unfortunately, to date we have received no detailed response to this correspondence. We are deeply disappointed not to have received a response from the Prime Minister, especially as he has stated that he is dedicated to working for a solution to the current situation. Human rights must be a vital component to any lasting solution and we would urge the Prime Minister to engage in dialogue with Amnesty International and other organisations that seek an end to the killing and destruction.

  151.  In the section on the Palestinian Authority (PA) the report explains that the UK government (quite correctly in Amnesty International's opinion) "unreservedly condemns all acts of violence against Israel's civilian population". Unfortunately, such a statement is omitted from any of the entries covering the killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. While in 2005 and 2006 there was a welcome drop in killings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian armed groups, the same has not been the case with regard to killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. On the contrary, in 2006, killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces spiralled, with some 600 Palestinians, more than half of them civilians and including some 100 children, killed by Israeli forces. In the same period Palestinians armed groups have killed 17 Israeli civilians, including one child. It is imperative that the UK unreservedly condemns all civilian killings regardless of the nationality of the victims. Failures to do so leaves it open to accusations of "double standards" and jeopardises its role as an "honest broker". The UK government should unreservedly condemn disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Israeli forces that result in the death and injury of Palestinian civilians, notably air strikes and artillery shelling into densely populated residential areas, which, as has been repeatedly proven, are certain to cause death and injury to civilians.

  152.  The report quite rightly states that the PA "needs to reform the security sector so that it can take action against groups and individuals responsible for acts of violence". In December 2006, whilst visiting the region, Amnesty International Secretary-General Irene Khan stressed the urgent need to address inter-factional violence between armed Palestinian groups and called for President Abbas and the Hamas leadership to take responsibility for the violence, bring the groups under control and address issues of impunity. The UK government should demand that President Abbas, as well as the Hamas leadership, take concrete measures to stop inter-factional fighting and end impunity for members of Palestinian armed groups and security forces.

RUSSIA (PAGES 86-98)

  153.  The FCO report's section on Russia refers to the "cautious optimism" of the Russian Ombudsman for Human Rights in the medium to long term. In the meantime, the human rights situation in the country remains dire, with many and severe abuses. The Russian Federation held the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from May 2006 to November 2006 and has been elected onto the new UN Human Rights Council. The UK government should use its membership of the Council of Europe and the UN Human Rights Council to remind the Russian Federation of its human rights responsibilities as participants in both these organisations. The UK government should also publish any results coming from the ongoing UK-Russia dialogue.

  154.  The FCO report appears to have accepted the framing by President Putin of the conflict in Chechnya and the wider North Caucasus as part of the global "war on terror". Amnesty International is concerned that Russia is using such language to justify continuing human rights abuses. Although the FCO report acknowledges the many allegations that the Chechen Prime Minister and the security forces under his control are responsible for a wide range of human rights violations, it refers also to their role as part of the "important task" of tracking down terrorists. There is, however, no end to the serious and widespread human rights abuses in Chechnya and the wider North Caucasus. "Disappearances", abductions, torture, arbitrary and incommunicado detention in unacknowledged as well as official places of detention are continuing in Chechnya and the North Caucasus. In the words of the Russian NGO Memorial (mentioned in the FCO report as noting that the number of abductions has fallen over the past year), "the period from July 2005 to July 2006 has not brought any encouraging changes". Amnesty International calls on the UK government to urge the Russian government to independently investigate all allegations of abuse by security forces and bring those responsible to justice.

  155.  The FCO report mentions that the Russian authorities have granted permission for the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit Chechnya in October 2006.  This visit was postponed at the last minute because the Russian authorities refused to agree to the terms of reference of the Special Rapporteur. It was stated earlier in 2006 in a report published by the UN Special Rapporteur on Civil & Political Rights, that he regretted the failure of the Russian government to cooperate with the mandate given to him by the UN Commission on Human Rights, in its failure to respond to his urgent appeal in November 2005 regarding the alleged disappearance of three Chechen citizens. The UK government should press the Russian authorities to cooperate with UN human rights bodies

  156.  Amnesty International continues to be extremely concerned at the use by police officers of torture in detention centres across the Russian Federation. Safeguards against torture are circumvented, often with impunity. It is the duty of the General Procuracy to investigate allegations of torture and other ill-treatment; however, its record in this respect is unsatisfactory. There is no effective, independent and nationally enforced system of visits to all places of detention and while different agencies do undertake visits to places of detention, they are either not fully independent or they are unable to make unannounced visits, and have no powers of enforcement. Police custody is particularly closed to outside scrutiny and it is in police custody that detainees are most vulnerable. The UK government should press the Russian authorities to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, to establish a mechanism for unannounced inspections of all places of detention, to increase the effectiveness of investigations into allegations of torture and to improve the professional training of police officers.

  157.  Harassment of human rights NGOs in Russia continues to be of particular concern. The FCO report details continuing concerns regarding the NGO legislation implemented this year and states that "implementation of the amended NGO law will remain a key area of interest for the international community...". It seems clear that hostility shown to civil society and human rights defenders is on the increase.[11] Various recommendations of the Council of Europe relating to the legislation have not been incorporated. In October 2006, dozens of foreign and international NGOs were forced to suspend their activities because their applications for registration had not been approved in time, due to burdensome and unclear procedures introduced under the new legislation. The Russian authorities must cease immediately all harassment of human rights organisations and human rights defenders. The UK government should encourage the Russian authorities to accept human rights NGOs as partners, and not look at them with suspicion and distrust.

  158.  Freedom of expression in Russia remains a major concern as outlined in the FCO report. Furthermore, murders, kidnappings and harassment of journalists appear to be carried out in an atmosphere of virtual impunity, with few of the killers brought to justice. Most recently, Amnesty International was shocked and deeply angered by the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and welcomes UK government statements to the effect that a thorough investigation must be carried out. The UK government must continue to press for the need for prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into the murder of independent journalists such as Anna Politkovskaya and press the Russian authorities to show that there can be no impunity for such crimes.

  159.  We agree with the FCO report's statement that xenophobia is a growing problem. Racially motivated killings, beatings and discrimination are all of serious concern. The Russian authorities are failing to sufficiently challenge xenophobia and intolerance and until recently have failed even to publicly recognise racially motivated attacks as a problem. Some regional authorities have taken initiatives to address racism, but they are woefully inadequate and isolated. While there might now be a growing awareness among the authorities of the problem of racist attacks against minorities, there appears to be no comprehensive plan of action being implemented to combat racism and discrimination by state agents. In April 2006, the Russian Ombudsman for Human Rights went so far as to accuse law enforcement officers of covering up the extent of racist violence. The UK government should remind the Russian authorities that the country's record on racism is incompatible with its place on the international stage and international human rights law.

  160.  For the second year running, the report makes no mention of violence against women in Russia, although it makes a brief mention of high rates of sexual violence and gives details of some support for the Russian NGO Syostri (Sexual Assault Recovery Centre). Levels of domestic violence are alarmingly high. Victims of domestic violence enjoy little support from the state or society and often encounter a lack of political will and practical support mechanisms. In 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women published a report on violence against women in Russia and expressed great concern about the state's failure to act on domestic violence.[12] Amnesty International is concerned at the absence of material in the FCO report on this issue and once again wonder why this is the case.

SUDAN (PAGES 101-104)161.  The FCO report addresses Amnesty International's main concerns regarding Sudan. We recognise that the UK government has played a key role in responding to the crisis in Darfur and welcome its willingness to facilitate and act as a broker for peace in the region.

  162.  The FCO report describes the situation in Darfur as "precarious", whilst Amnesty International would consider it to be a crisis. Despite efforts by the international community to revitalise the peace process, the government of Sudan and armed groups continue to commit human rights abuses. A military offensive in August and September 2006 by government armed forces failed to crush the rebel groups not signed up to the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) of May 2006. During a new offensive in November, the government and Janjawid militia attacked civilian populations near or around the bases of the non-signatory groups. Amnesty International urges the UK government to continue to use its influence as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and member of the UN Human Rights Council to ensure that the crisis in Darfur remains on the international agenda.

  163.  The UK government continues to play a leading role at the UN and we welcome its efforts supporting the Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Darfur and in securing UN Security Council Resolution 1706.  Resolution 1706 extended the UN Mission in Sudan (UNAMIS) mandate in the south of Sudan to cover Darfur, and calls for 22,500 UN troops and police officers to support the 7,000-member AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS) force in the region. Amnesty International asks the UK government to use its influence at the UN and through other representations to encourage the government of Sudan to accept the deployment of an effective UN peacekeeping force in Darfur. In November 2006, the African Union Peace and Security Council agreed to extend the AMIS mandate until 30 June 2007.  While we welcome this move, we continue to stress that this should be an interim measure that would ultimately lead to the transition to a UN peacekeeping force under UNSCR 1706, as above.

  164.  Also in November 2006, a high-level consultation meeting on Darfur was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission co-chaired a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the League of Arab States and a number of African countries, including Sudan. The UN proposed three "phases" relating to peacekeepers in Darfur: a light package; an enhanced support package; and a UN/AU hybrid operation. Amnesty International urges the UK government to use its influence to ensure that effective human rights protection is at the heart of any peacekeeping operation in Darfur and that such a force can: provide security for those in camps, towns and villages; ensure the safe and voluntary assisted return for displaced people and refugees; and actively monitor and verify the disarmament of the Janjawid.

  165.  Unfortunately, the report only makes passing reference in the Annex to the conflict in Darfur spilling over into eastern Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR). Amnesty International has had three missions to eastern Chad in the past year and has reported cross border attacks by Janjawid militia and other armed groups. Since September 2005 Janjawid attacks into eastern Chad have displaced between 50,000 and 75,000 people, who have moved further inland. Some 15,000 of them, cut off from any other escape route, have moved to Darfur. The displaced persons have little or no access to humanitarian assistance, and desperate to find some protection, are becoming a potential pool for recruitment by Darfuri armed groups based in eastern Chad. Amnesty International urges the UK government to call for the establishment of a UN presence in key locations in Chad to monitor cross border activities of armed groups along the Sudanese border, as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1706.

  166.  We would welcome any interventions that the FCO could make to the Sudanese government on granting Amnesty International access to Northern Sudan and Darfur. It was the Secretary of State's timely intervention which resulted in Amnesty International gaining access to Darfur in March 2004.  Since then, we have only been able to visit the Southern Sudan area and do not have access to other parts of the country.

TURKEY (PAGES 135-138)

  167.  Amnesty International agrees with the FCO's overall analysis that whilst human rights improvements have been made in Turkey "concerns remain—for example about freedom of expression...". Amnesty International also believes that Turkey needs to take more action to implement its legislative human rights reforms. Worryingly, human rights deteriorated in the eastern and south-eastern provinces due to a rise in armed clashes between the Turkish security services and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the PKK.

  168.  A wide range of laws containing fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression remain in force. Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, on the denigration of Turkishness, was frequently used arbitrarily to target a wide range of critical opinion including against against the journalist Hrant Dink, novelist Orhan Pamuk, and Deputy Chair of the Mazlum Der human rights organisation, Sehmus Ulek. It is welcome however, that some of these high-profile cases, such as Orhan Pamuk's, eventually resulted in acquittals. Nonetheless many less high profile cases remain. Amnesty International believes that Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code should be repealed. The UK government should encourage the Turkish government to make the necessary changes to bring the Turkish Penal code into line with the ECHR principle of freedom of expression.

  169.  The FCO report correctly asserts that many Turkish NGOs believe the new Anti Terror Law passed in June 2006 will be used to repress freedom of expression and assembly rather than tackle terrorism. Amnesty International Turkey has organised a round-table discussion with NGOs to formulate their response. It is notable that the Turkish government referred to the UK's own anti-terrorism legislation when drafting this law, setting a worrying precedent for countries around the world. Furthermore, Amnesty International has serious concerns regarding the persistence of protracted and unfair trials for those charged under anti-terrorism legislation. In a report published in 2006 Amnesty International detailed five case studies which highlight serious concerns regarding the use in court of evidence allegedly extracted under torture or other ill-treatment.[13] This has often been preceded by incommunicado detention, an absence of adequate medical examinations and a failure to investigate such allegations by detainees. Amnesty International asks the UK government to call on the Turkish government to institute immediate measures to ensure compliance with international standards for fair trial for those charged under anti-terrorism legislation, including investigating allegations of torture or other ill-treatment and ending all use of evidence extracted under torture or other ill-treatment in court.

  170.  Implementation of Turkey's human rights reforms requires monitoring and support. Official human rights monitoring mechanisms attached to the Prime Ministry have failed to function adequately and have insufficient powers to report and investigate violations. The Prime Ministry Human Rights advisory board has been inactive since the resignation in 2005 of its head following his prosecution under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code and on charges of "inciting enmity or hatred amongst the population" in relation to a report on minority and cultural rights. The Provincial Human Rights Boards also failed to address grave violations. The UK government must press the Turkish government to advance the creation of national human rights institutions and ensure that they conform to the Paris Principles on the role, composition, status and functions of national human rights instruments.

  171.  Whilst reports of torture and ill-treatment of individuals detained for political offences decreased, people detained on suspicion of committing ordinary crimes such as theft or public disorder were particularly at risk. This is of particular concern given the broad remit for arrests under the new anti-terrorism legislation. We continue to believe that unannounced visits and unpublished reports by the Turkish human rights boards to police stations are insufficient, and we continue to urge Turkey to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), which would enable an independent system of monitoring. The UK government and EU should support the ratification of OPCAT by the Turkish government and provide the Turkish government with as much practical support as possible to ensure that this takes place.

  172.  Amnesty International believes that an overwhelming climate of impunity persists in Turkey for security forces engaged in acts such as disproportionate use of force, deaths in custody, rape and extra judicial executions. Serious obstacles remain to any criminal investigation of chain of command responsibility for human rights violations. For example, 54 officers were charged with using excessive force to disperse a peaceful International Women's Day demonstration in March 2005, which left three women hospitalised, but senior officers were not charged, merely reprimanded. Amnesty International asks the UK government to urge the Turkish government to establish an independent investigative mechanism—similar to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in the UK—to investigate any allegations of serious human rights violations by Turkish security forces.

Amnesty International UK

10 January 2007

---

---

1   For a wider discussion of this and other issues see: `United Kingdom, Human Rights: a broken promise', Amnesty International, February 2006, available at: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450042006?open&of=ENG-GBR Back

2   Statement of the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, to the 2nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, 20 September 2006. Back

3   In 2001, Sweden expelled two asylum seekers to Egypt relying on `diplomatic assurances' to counter the risk of torture. Both men were held in incommunicado detention in Egypt and allege that they were tortured while in custody in Egypt. Back

4   See, for example, evidence given by Baroness Scotland to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 30 October 2006, particularly questions 84-95. Back

5   The UN General Assembly adopted the treaty in December 2006. Back

6   Page 187 Back

7   One case which gave rise to considerable concern within and outside China was the temporary closure and sacking of the editors of `Freezing Point' (Bingdian), a popular supplement to the China Youth Daily, after it carried an academic article criticising the official interpretation of certain historical events, including the 1900 Boxer Rebellion. The paper was closed down for five weeks from 24 January 2006, resuming publication only after its editor, Li Datong, and deputy editor, Lu Yuegang, had been dismissed. Back

8   Democratic Republic of Congo: Children at war, creating hope for the future, available at: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR620172006?open&of=ENG-COD Back

9   The Control Arms Campaign comprises Amnesty International, Oxfam and IANSA. Back

10   The case is due to be heard by the Law Lords in April 2007. Back

11   Amnesty International has reported, this year and last, on the case of Stanislav Dmitrievskii of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (the RCFS). Mr Dmitrievskii (together with his colleague at the RCFS, Oksana Chelysheva) received the 2006 Amnesty International Award for Human Rights Reporting Under Threat for his brave human rights reporting of human rights abuses in Chechnya. A previous recipient of this award was Anna Politkovskaya. As stated in the FCO Report, in February this year, he was convicted of "incitement to racial hatred" and given a two year suspended sentence and four years' probation. His offence was to have published articles written by Chechen rebel leaders, again as stated by the FCO Report, which omits to mention however that these articles called for a peaceful resolution of the Chechen conflict. In addition to the harassment suffered by the members of the RCFS, the organisation itself was banned on 13 October. The decision was appealed and the hearing of the appeal has been set at the Supreme Court for 23 January 2007. Back

12   Integration of the human rights of women and a gender perspective: Violence against women, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Erturk, Mission to the Russian Federation, E/EN.4/2006/61/Add.2 Back

13   Turkey, Justice Delayed and Denied: The persistence of protracted and unfair trials for those charged under anti-terrorism legislation. available at: http//:web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR440132006?open&of=ENG-TUR Back

---

Prepared 29 April 2007