Supplementary evidence from Rt Hon Mr
Ian McCartney MP, Minister of State for Trade,
Investment and Foreign Affairs
During my oral evidence session on the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office's 2006 Annual Human Rights Report, which
took place on 7 February, I undertook to write to the Committee
with further information about a number of questions.
DEPORTATION WITH
ASSURANCES (Q65/66)
I undertook to write to the Committee with fuller
details of the arrangements with Algeria, Libya, Jordan and Lebanon.
We have already made much of the information that follows available
to the Committee in the form of our recent response to the Committee's
response to the Annual Human Rights Report. And, of course, copies
of the arrangements have been deposited with the Library of the
House. For ease of reference I attach a copy of the arrangements
we have concluded with Libya.[8]
17 I hope that this short overview will be of assistance to the
Committee in their work.
Libya, Jordan and Lebanon
MOUs were signed with Libya, Jordan and Lebanon
in October 2005, August 2005 and December 2005 respectively. The
MOUs are bilateral framework agreements which formalise the process
of obtaining assurances regarding the future treatment of people
we wish to deport from the UK. They contain assurances, agreed
by both parties, that we believe will safeguard the rights of
individuals being returned. Examples include access to medical
treatment, adequate nourishment and accommodation as well as treatment
in a humane manner in accordance with internationally accepted
standards. Additional, specific assurances may be obtained in
individual cases depending on the circumstances of each case.
At the time of signature, the British Government
also set out to the governments of Libya, Lebanon and Jordan,
its firm opposition to the use of the death penalty in any circumstances
and confirmed in writing that the Government would not return
an individual if that person were at significant risk of being
subjected to such a penalty.
In Libya, Lebanon and Jordan monitoring bodies
have been appointed to oversee the implementation of assurances.
Monitoring is one element of the wider package (which includes
the assurances which I have mentioned above). In selecting and
appointing monitoring bodies, the British Government and the government
of the receiving State take into consideration eg capacity, independence,
access to expertise. Our Embassies are closely involved in the
selection process and liaise with monitoring bodies once appointed.
The monitoring body in each case must have capacity for the task
ie have experts ("Monitors") trained in physical and
psychological sign of torture and ill-treatment; have, or have
access to, sufficient independent lawyers, doctors, forensic specialists,
and specialists on human rights, humanitarian law and prison systems
and the police. Where necessary, additional training or capacity
building measures can be provided to ensure the monitoring can
function effectively.
The monitoring body operates under terms of
reference, which are agreed by the British Government, the receiving
state and the monitoring body itself. Under the Terms of Reference
the monitoring body will undertake a number of tasks, including
accompanying deportees from the UK to the receiving state and
to their home, or other destination; to ensure that contact details
are obtained for the returnee and his/her next of kin. They will
make arrangements to maintain contact with an individual whether
he/she is in detention or at liberty. The monitoring body should
provide frank reports to authorities of both States and should
contact the sending State immediately if its observations warrant.
The Qadhafi Development Foundation has been
appointed as the monitoring body in Libya, the Adaleh Centre in
Jordan and the Institute for Human Rights of the Beirut Bar Association
in Lebanon.
Capacity building training is already being
provided to the monitoring body in Jordan and will shortly be
provided in Libya and Lebanon in the area of international human
rights law and also in the detection of signs of torture and ill-treatment.
The British Government also supports, and has done so for some
time, wider human rights projects in the Middle East and North
Africa. For example the British Embassy in Libya run a Prison
Management Project with the International Centre for Prison Studies
(ICPS) of King's College, and the Libyan Judicial Police. In Jordan
the Embassy has funded training courses, capacity building and
study visits in the UK for the Jordanian Ministry of Justice and
the Jordanian police, as well as a project with the National Centre
for Human Rights to disseminate knowledge of human rights in Jordanian
schools.
Algeria
There is no MOU with Algeria. Instead the arrangements
include an Exchange of Letters, signed by the Prime Minister and
Algerian President Bouteflika on 11 July 2006 and an exchange
of Note Verbales in each individual case. The Exchange of Letters
and assurances in individual cases safeguard the rights of the
individuals being returned. In the Exchange of Letters both Governments
undertake to abide by fundamental freedoms such as the freedom
of movement and right of abode. In particular they undertake to
uphold their obligations under national and international law.
The British Government set out in the Exchange of Letters its
firm opposition to the use of the death penalty in any circumstances
and confirmed that the Government would not return an individual
to Algeria if that person were at significant risk of being subjected
to such a penalty. No monitoring body has been appointed in Algeria.
General remarks
The arrangements with Algeria, Libya, Jordan
and Lebanon apply to individuals whom the Government wishes to
deport on grounds of national security. An individual who is served
with a deportation order in these circumstances has the right
to appeal against his deportation. Deportation may not take place
if an appeal to the British courts is outstanding.
To date the British courts have considered five
appeals against deportation to Algeria, as well as one Jordanian
case and one Libyan appeal. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission
has published judgments in four cases, the Jordanian and three
involving Algerians. In each case the court upheld the deportation
order. The Government welcomes these judgments. Judgment in respect
of the Libyan case is expected shortly.
During my evidence to the Committee I also undertook
to provide further information about the two Algerians who were
deported from the United Kingdom in June of last year. The paragraphs
below detail this information. I have also included an explanation
of the position of a further four individuals, who have also since
returned to Algeria.
In my evidence I explained to the Committee
that I used initials to refer to the men because of British court
proceedings. The same procedure applies here.
Two Algerians, "I" and "V",
were deported in June 2006 following withdrawal of their appeals
against deportation from the UK. They were detained and interviewed
on arrival in Algeria. They were released after five days and
six days in detention respectively. On release they were reunited
with their families.
Between 20 and 27 January 2007 a further four
Algerians were deported to Algeria after either withdrawing or
waiving their appeals against deportation. They were known as
"K", "H" and "P". The fourth man
was formerly known as "Q"; he recently waived his right
to anonymity and is now known as Mr Dendani.
Prior to removal, each individual was provided
with the contact details of the British Embassy in Algiers and
it was explained that they or a representative could maintain
contact with the Embassy following their return. British Embassy
officials have been in and remain in close contact with the Algerian
authorities regarding all four deportees. Only one individual,
"H", specifically requested contact arrangements. These
were established before "H" left the UK. The British
Embassy in Algiers has been in touch with H's family since "H"
returned.
The Algerian authorities have told us that "K"
was detained on 24 January 2007 and released without charge on
4 February. "P" was detained on 27 January 2007 and
released without charge on 30 January. Amnesty International reported
on 8 February that "K" had rejoined his family and had
not reported being subject to any ill-treatment during his detention.
Mr Dendani was detained on 25 January 2007 and subsequently brought
before a court. He has been charged with offences under Article
87 of the Algerian Criminal Code, (membership of an armed terrorist
group active abroad) and under Article 249 (assumption of the
name of a third party).
"H" was detained on 31 January 2007
and brought before a court on 5 February 2007. He has been charged
with offences under Article 87 of the Algerian Criminal Code (membership
of an armed terrorist group active abroad). He has had contact
with his family since being charged and it is the Government's
understanding that he is being held in a civilian prison. He has
had access to an Algerian lawyer. The British Government will
continue to monitor the cases of "Q" and "H"
closely.
All four men were either released or charged
before the 12 day detention period, provided for in Article 51
of the Algerian Criminal Code, had expired. All were able to contact
their families during that initial period of detention.
By way of conclusion I would only add that,
as I said when I gave my evidence to the Committee, the United
Kingdom is not in any way seeking to evade its international human
rights obligations. Indeed it is precisely to uphold these obligations
that the Government has sought assurances from Libya, Lebanon,
Jordan and Algeria before deporting these individuals.
AFGHANISTAN (Q76/77)
I undertook to write to you about compensating
in cases of civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
It is the national responsibility of each ISAF
troop-contributing nation to pay compensation for valid claims
related to civilian casualties. The UK believes it important that
compensation claims are considered quickly by allies and compensation
is paid promptly in accordance with legal liability.
To assist in the thorough and expedient resolution
of claims, it is normal procedure for the Ministry of Defence
to deploy an Area Claims Officer (ACO) to those NATO operations
where the UK is a contributing nation. The ACO is responsible
for handling all but the most serious compensation claims. Those
claims involving death or serious injury are handled by the Ministry
of Defence in the UK because of their complex and sensitive nature
and to ensure a consistent approach in their handling.
PALESTINIAN/ISRAEL:
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
(Q79)
I undertook to write with further details regarding
the formation of a National Unity Government and UK funding to
the Palestinian people.
Following several days of discussions in Mecca,
on 8 February Fatah and Hamas agreed to form a National Unity
Government. At their meeting in Berlin on 21 February, the Quartet
reiterated its support for a government committed to the three
principles: renunciation of violence; recognition of Israel; and
acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the
Roadmap and has encouraged progress in this direction. We stand
ready to work with a Palestinian government based on these principles
and await further details of the new government.
The UK Government is extremely concerned about
the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
and is committed to helping the Palestinian people through the
EU-led Temporary International Mechanism (TIM) and other means.
In 2006, we gave £30 million bilaterally
and an additional £40 million through the EU. The Secretary
of State for International Development has also announced a four-year,
£76.6 million commitment to UN Relief and Works Agency. The
TIM has been extended by the Quartet twice, most recently in late
December for three months. Following this decision the EU has
agreed to increase the number of recipients, while maintaining
the rigorous auditing procedures that have been applied so far.
UK/RUSSIA HUMAN
RIGHTS CONSULTATIONS
(Q95)
I undertook to send a note to the Committee
about the recent round of the UK/Russia Human Rights consultations.
The latest round of our bilateral human rights
consultations with Russia was held at the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office on 22-23 January 2007.
As a new element of the talks, the UK made presentations
on our experience of advancing human rights in areas of mutual
interest. The Association of Chief Police Officers (National Communities
Tension Team) gave a presentation on the UK's experience of investigating
racially motivated crimes. In addition, the Department of Constitutional
Affairs (Human Rights Division) shared UK experience of implementing
European Court of Human Rights judgements. These presentations
stimulated a useful exchange of views.
There was a broad discussion on co-operation
in international institutions. We urged Russia to ratify Article
14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (on reform of the
European Court of Human Rights) and to implement outstanding European
Court of Human Rights judgements.
We reiterated our support for the OSCE and its
core work, particularly the Office for Democracy, Institutions
and Human Rights, and its election-monitoring role.
There was an exchange of views on the UN Human
Rights Council. We stressed the need for the Council to develop
effective procedures and instruments to enable it to address a
range of issues, including emergency situations.
We discussed the situation in the North Caucasus
and raised concerns about the role of the Kadyrovtsy (the former
Chechen Prime Minister, Ramzan Kadyrov's officially disbanded
personal militia), disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture
and impunity.
We also raised many of our wider human rights
concerns in Russia including: judicial independence, the death
penalty, the use of torture by law enforcement officials, journalist
safety, freedom of the media, restrictions on NGOs, the law against
extremist activity, and the rights of ethnic, racial, sexual and
religious minorities.
The Russian Government also raised a number
of concerns about human rights observance in the United Kingdom,
including; detention without charge, the use of evidence obtained
under torture and non-ratification of European Human Rights Conventions.
The bilateral consultations, complemented with
the EU/Russia human rights consultations, held twice a year, our
financial and political support for civil society, and ongoing
lobbying by UK Ministers and officials, demonstrate the Government's
commitment to promoting human rights and democratic freedoms in
Russia.
Rt Hon Mr Ian McCartney MP
Minister of State for Trade, Investment and Foreign
Affairs
February 2007
8 17 Ev 87-90 Back
| 
