UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 269-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

Foreign Affairs COMMITTEE

 

 

Human Rights

 

 

Wednesday 24 January 2007

KATE ALLEN AND TOM PORTEOUS

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1- 53

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 24 January 2007

Members present

Mike Gapes, in the Chair

Mr. Fabian Hamilton

Mr. Eric Illsley

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr. Malcolm Moss

Sandra Osborne

Mr. Ken Purchase

________________

[Relevant documents: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Annual Report 2006; HR 52 Written evidence from Human Rights Watch; HR 53 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report: Additional information for Foreign Affairs Committee; HR 54 Written evidence from Amnesty International UK.]

 

Examination of Witnesses

 

Witnesses: Kate Allen, Director, Amnesty International UK, and Tom Porteous, London Director, Human Rights Watch, gave evidence.

 

Chairman: Good morning, everybody. I welcome Kate Allen and Tom Porteous to the Committee. Kate has been here many times for Amnesty, but I think that this is Tom's first appearance before us.

Tom Porteous: It is indeed.

Chairman: We will try to be reasonably gentle with you.

Tom Porteous: Thank you.

Q1 Chairman: You are both here to talk about the Foreign Office's human rights annual report and our inquiry into human rights and the general situation. What is your assessment of the changes in the UN system and the performance and way of working of the new Human Rights Council?

Kate Allen: Before I begin, I thank the Committee on behalf of both of us for inviting us to give oral evidence. We value the opportunity to speak directly to the Committee.

On the reforms and changes at the UN, Amnesty certainly welcomes the setting up of the Human Rights Council in March 2006. We very much valued the dialogue that we had with the UK Government on the reforms that were taking place at the UN. We agree with the Foreign Office's human rights annual report that there were compromises in establishing the Human Rights Council, but we at Amnesty are working hard to ensure that what we put in front of that Committee helps it to become a success. We think that the first year is critical and that it is very important that the council develops the mechanisms and procedures that will enable it to be an effective body for addressing human rights.

We want to see the system of independent human rights experts and special procedures continue and not weaken. We want to see a universal periodic review mechanism developed into an independent and systematic approach to assessing the human rights records of different countries, in order to take some of the political nature out of those assessments. Those are our main comments. We have also very much welcomed the UK Government's support for the office of the high commissioner. The UK is one of the largest donors of voluntary contributions, and we have been very pleased to see that continue.

Tom Porteous: Let me echo Kate Allen's thanks for this opportunity to give evidence on the Foreign Office's human rights annual report. Having worked at the Foreign Office, I know how much work goes into such reports, and I also know how committed our diplomats around the world are to promoting human rights. They do a very good job in a number of very important areas. One of them is certainly the Human Rights Council. The UK is, obviously, a member of the council, and has been one of the members most committed to making it work in this crucial first year.

Human Rights Watch has made the Human Rights Council an institutional priority because we think that it is important that it works. There are serious risks that it will suffer the same sort of fate as the Commission for Human Rights-its predecessor. That is not to say that we did not value what the commission did over the years. It was very important in setting standards and building human rights norms in respect of the prohibition of torture and other things, so it played a very important role. Obviously, it came in for a lot of criticism, some of which was valid, and we see that the Human Rights Council is coming in for the same kind of criticism. That, too, is valid. It has so far failed to take action on some of the most terrible human rights abuses in the world, such as in Darfur, Burma and Uzbekistan, and has a tendency to focus only on Israel. We think that that is unbalanced, although Israel does merit consideration by the council.

It is very important that we work hard to make the Human Rights Council work. One of the problems is the numbers game within the council. The Organisation of the Islamic Conference holds key roles in council politics and decision making. We think that the UK should be working more proactively with its EU partners to undermine that dynamic in order to break the OIC's bloc voting patterns. We hope to see that in the coming session of the Human Rights Council. Other than that, I echo what Kate Allen said about the special procedures and universal periodic review. Those are important elements of the council and are potentially very powerful and effective. We hope that we can make them work, along with the rest of the organisation.

Q2 Chairman: Thank you. May I move on to an even wider area-the international arms trade treaty, which you were celebrating on Monday evening? Unfortunately, I could not get to the celebration, but I understand that a lot of people were there celebrating the work of non-governmental organisations, politicians in this country, and indeed the British Government. The US voted against the treaty in the General Assembly. I think that it was the only country to do so. How damaging do you think that that is to an effective treaty?

Kate Allen: Yes, we had a very good celebration and were very pleased that Dr. Kim Howells addressed 300 to 400 activists and civil servants and our partner agencies. It was an extremely good occasion. It was right to celebrate the fact that in the last three years-the campaign only started three years-we have gone from only two countries supporting an arms trade treaty to 153 voting at the General Assembly at the end of last year. We can now start the process for a treaty. So I think that we have a great deal of momentum.

On the position of the United States Government, it is unfortunate that it was the only country to vote against starting the process. We will have to address that as the process moves forward and as the discussions take place, over the next three or four years, in order to establish a treaty. Amnesty's view is that we will have to deal with that, but we cannot let US opposition stop what we see as vital progress. As you all know, the US opposed the International Criminal Court, has not signed the convention on the rights of the child and has a particular position on international conventions and treaties, but we cannot let that stop our progress.

I would like to congratulate the United Kingdom Government on having been an absolute champion of the arms trade treaty, and we want to ensure over the coming years that we continue to work together effectively. What is in front of us now is the really long haul of the detailed work that will mean that we will have an effective treaty that I hope we can all celebrate the signing of before too long.

Tom Porteous: The arms trade treaty is a particular area of specialisation for Amnesty International. I would like to raise a connected issue, if I may, on the possibility of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. This is something that we think the UK, among other nations, is blocking. Cluster munitions endanger civilians, because they leave sub-munitions over a very wide area and there are many duds among them, so even after a conflict has ended, for example in Lebanon, you will get civilian casualties. Therefore we feel that they cannot be justified under the rules of war and that they should be banned.

There is an opportunity now, because Norway is inviting states that are prepared to address these humanitarian concerns to develop a new treaty along the same lines as the mine ban treaty, and we think this is an important opportunity. At the moment, the UK, among other countries, including China, Russia and the United States, is blocking that. They want to see discussions over cluster munitions taking place within the convention on conventional weapons. That is basically a way of making sure it does not happen-at least not any time soon.

Norway's initiative is very important. We feel that the UK Government should be joining it, and we know that there is a lot of support for that within the Labour party and, we hope, also within Parliament. We think this is a time to move forward on that.

Q3 Mr. Moss: The FCO report was very positive about the responsibility to protect-that historic commitment made back at the UN summit in 2005 and reaffirmed in Security Council resolution 1674. Do you believe that the UN's commitment to the responsibility to protect has had any real impact?

Tom Porteous: So far it has not. You can see that in Darfur, in particular, where the UN is struggling to have an impact on protecting the civilian population. We think that the responsibility to protect is a very important initiative. It was finalised at the World summit in 2005. That is less than two years ago, so there is still time to make it work.

The new United Nations Secretary-General, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council, will have a crucial role to play in setting up a framework for the implementation of this principle of the responsibility to protect. That means building understanding among the member states of the United Nations about what it really means. What are the tools for the responsibility to protect? There is a feeling that it is just a sort of military intervention. It is not. Military intervention, in terms of the responsibility to protect, is a last resort. The agreement on the responsibility to protect is primarily about humanitarian and diplomatic intervention to secure protection of civilians threatened with genocide, crimes against humanity and so forth.

It is necessary to build understanding and to bring together other institutions like the Security Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council to build a consistent approach to the responsibility to protect, and also to establish guidelines on early warning and early response, to define the point at which the mechanism of the responsibility to protect kicks in and the indicators that mean that one needs to start watching carefully for the signs of genocide and crimes against humanity. That is the point at which the UN has a responsibility to go in and start doing something. We must also build the capacity for that intervention. Those are the crucial things. Obviously in Darfur it is a failure. Also in Iraq, frankly, we are not protecting civilians. If we focus all the time on Darfur, people will accuse the west of double standards.

There are areas, therefore, where the responsibility to protect clearly is not working; where civilians are threatened by gross human rights abuses and genocide. It is not working but it must work. It is early days, however, and we hope to see this framework for implementation.

Q4 Mr. Hamilton: May I move on to the International Criminal Court? Kate Allen made a reference to it earlier, because the United States unfortunately has chosen not to sign the treaty, but perhaps of more concern is that China and India have chosen to remain outside the treaty that has established the ICC. I wonder whether either or both of you would comment on how effective you think the ICC can be without China, India or even the United States.

Kate Allen: You have pointed out who is not supporting the ICC, but it has a great deal of support around the world, and I am again very pleased that the UK Government have continued their work to get other countries to ratify and to ensure that the court is properly resourced and established. Sudan was referred to the ICC last year, and the US did not use its veto at the Security Council to stop that; all of us on this side of the table thought that it was a major achievement for that veto not to be used. We think that the court needs to have that kind of active international support.

The court has its first arrest warrants in terms of Uganda, it has arrests in terms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the referrals of crimes committed in Darfur. It has absolutely crucial and substantial issues in front of it, and the opposition or the lack of signing up from some countries simply means that those who do support it are going to have to work really hard to ensure that it is effective.

Tom Porteous: Again, I think this is an important area where the UK is playing a very effective role in trying to get other important states like the US to sign up to the ICC. As for China and India, that is still work in progress, as it were, but with respect to the United States, the UK has done a jolly good job. As Kate Allen was saying, the US has come on board with respect to the ICC's work in Sudan, now that it has seen that it can be useful in addressing this crucial issue of impunity.

In the four years that the ICC has been in operation, it has made a huge amount of progress, not just in terms of setting up the rules and procedures and appointing judges and offices and so forth, but it has field offices in places like Abeche, in wildest Chad, not to mention in Bunya, Kampala, Kinshasa and Ndjamena. One needs to give it time. There are cases now going through the ICC. We have a lot of concerns about the way in which it is operating, but we support it absolutely, and we certainly support the work that the UK is doing in supporting the International Criminal Court.

Q5 Mr. Hamilton: Thank you both for recognising the important role that the UK has played in setting up the ICC, but I suppose one of its first major challenges is that, for so many years in Uganda, this dreadful war in the north has been waged by the Lord's Resistance Army, under the leadership of Joseph Kony. As part of a proposed peace deal, President Museveni looks as if he has agreed to grant an amnesty to Kony from prosecution by the ICC. Do you feel that that is a challenge to the ICC and undermines its credibility? Judge Richard Goldstone has commented that if Kony is not prosecuted, this could seriously damage the credibility of the ICC. What is your opinion?

Kate Allen: Our view is that we are deeply concerned by those reports that the Ugandan Government may be bargaining away the rights of the victims of Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army. We are very firmly of the view that impunity should not be part of any resolution of the war in the north of Uganda. The people on both sides-the Ugandan Government side as well as the Lord's Resistance Army side-who have been involved in abuses should be brought to account. I hope that the international community will make its view clear to President Museveni over the coming period. These are the issues that will confront the International Criminal Court and the international community, and the international community must give really active and sustained support to the International Criminal Court and bring pressure to bear upon the Ugandan regime not to broker such deals.

Q6 Mr. Hamilton: May I interrupt you for a second? There is a dilemma here, is there not? The Lord's Resistance Army is infamous for its brutal techniques; if the deal truly stops the dreadful slaughter and violence that has been going on and brings about peace, surely that is the most important thing. The innocent civilians who have been suffering will be spared further brutality, in exchange for this exemption from prosecution.

Tom Porteous: May I jump in there? I do not think there is a dilemma. The point that Kate is trying to make and that I would certainly support is that there is no trade-off between peace and justice. You cannot have sustainable peace without addressing the crimes that were committed by the LRA, and indeed by the Ugandan army, in northern Uganda. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both been documenting these crimes for a long time; we know what we are talking about. These are very serious issues. If you simply grant impunity or amnesty to the people who have committed the most serious crimes in northern Uganda, you will not have peace.

The reason why the Ugandan rebels, the LRA, are now suing for peace in Juba in southern Sudan is precisely because they are under so much pressure not just from the Ugandan army but also from the international community, including the International Criminal Court. That is why they want peace. Frankly, their backs are against the wall. It is not the International Criminal Court that is holding up peace in Sudan. It is the rebels themselves. They do not want to come in from the bush because they still feel that they can escape from justice somehow or other. It is a false dilemma to pose it in terms of peace versus justice; there is no trade-off.

People are saying in northern Uganda that traditional justice should prevail, that we should use traditional justice systems to address the impunity there, but frankly we do not think that that would work for the most serious crimes. For a start, they would not provide fair trials, and we need the international oversight to ensure that these very serious crimes are addressed by the international community.

Chairman: We will move now to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

Q7 Andrew Mackinlay: Carla del Ponte expressed her view that the tribunal was unlikely to survive or endure beyond approximately 2010. Some big players are still to be brought before the tribunal-Mladic and Karadzic in particular. The United Kingdom is also supporting Bosnia-Herzegovina's entry into partnership for peace. What are the prospects of the big players still being brought before the tribunal? Are the United Kingdom Government doing enough, or are those two policies to which I referred in some conflict?

Kate Allen: The ICTY has been an extremely effective court; it has great achievements. We do have concerns about the completion strategy that has been set out, and we do not think that the tribunal's mandate can be regarded as fully implemented until Karadzic and Mladic are brought to justice.

We are concerned that an arbitrary deadline is being set and that that will cause difficulties. We are concerned about the referring of trials involving less senior perpetrators to national courts; most of the countries of former Yugoslavia lack the political will and in some cases would deliberately obstruct bringing people to account. There is a lack of capacity in the criminal justice systems, and ineffectiveness in terms of the protection of victims. We are firmly of the view that the tribunal needs to remain effective in some form until Karadzic and Mladic are brought to account.

Q8 Andrew Mackinlay: My impression over the years is that the Foreign Office shifts, sometimes blowing strong and saying that more could be done to track those people down, and sometimes altering the geography. The fad now is that these guys are in Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas a little while ago it was inferred-I use that word deliberately-that they might be in Montenegro. That is no longer the fad, as it were.

I sometimes feel that some people in London-it could be Government Departments or our armed forces-are not dealing from the top of the pack. Is enough being done? Is there enough candour in London, or is it part of a wider political game? The fact that these guys have not been brought to justice gives rise to the question-in fairness to the United Kingdom, other countries are involved-are we being deceived? Is a real effort being made to get these people?

Tom Porteous: It is really a question of priorities and resources. These people have been on the run for quite a long time, but let us not lose sight of the broader picture, which is that, as an instrument of international justice, the ICTY has done a good job. Okay, Milosevic died before he completed his trial and before he could finally be brought to justice. Nevertheless, he died in prison. Mladic and Karadzic have so far escaped justice, but they are on the run: their lives are blighted by the fact that international justice is after them.

That is the broader picture; a number of other people will be brought before the ICTY or have been brought before it. It has served as a useful way of investigating the crimes committed in that terrible period in the history of the Balkans. One should not lose sight of the broader picture. Yes, more could be done to get these guys, and we would certainly like to see that happen. We are pushing for it, through not only the British Government but the European Union, but we understand that there are other priorities and concerns.

Q9 Andrew Mackinlay: It is an interesting thing, is it not? Milosevic's contact with big international players was at summitry, dreadful as he might have been, while Karadzic had dialogue, meetings and intercourse with western European politicians and other big players and diplomats. He was courted and feted in London. He hosted people in the former Yugoslavia. Is there not a danger that some people somewhere are not trying hard enough, because if it was arranged, the evidence that might be disclosed before the tribunal would be acutely embarrassing to them?

Kate Allen: I think those might be questions to put to the Minister.

Andrew Mackinlay: Right.

Q10 Chairman: May I take it a bit further? I was in Brussels last week, and we were told that Karadzic is in Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Mladic is in Serbia. Given the fragile, delicate internal political situation in Serbia and the imminent announcement about Kosovo by Martti Ahtisaari, do you think that a move on Mladic at this time might complicate the politics in Serbia and the region, or would it assist that process?

Kate Allen: I think it would assist the process. It is essential that Karadzic and Mladic are brought to justice. In establishing effective approaches to justice in the countries of the former Yugoslavia, it has to be seen that such people are brought to account and that good and effective justice systems can be set up in the aftermath.

Q11 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May we explore a little more the practical problems of international criminal justice? It is obviously has theoretical attractions. In practice, however, we have seen difficulties in detaining suspects. There have been problems of bargaining, as we have discussed, and long trial delays-the tribunal trying Milosevic was in its fourth year when he conveniently died. Throughout, there have been opportunities for the accused to grandstand and put their case to a wider international audience. The international court is growing: our own contribution is now more than £6 million a year. Do you think that we are getting value for money?

Kate Allen: Absolutely. We must remember that the court is in its very early days and that there will inevitably be major issues on its establishment for it and the international community to address. If you examine its record so far and the tribunals that have taken place, you can see the way in which international justice is starting to have an effect. Tom Porteous talked about some of the impact that it has already had on perpetrators of serious human rights abuses. If you examine the Special Court for Sierra Leone you see the tremendous impact that it has had and the great legacy that it will leave in the Sierra Leone justice system. The international community has something that it really needs to ensure is properly protected and resourced in its formative years. Difficulties are inevitable, and minds have to be bent to ensure that the problems are addressed and solutions found rather than being seen as obstacles that cannot be overcome.

Q12 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So your response is, "Yes, there are problems, but let's just make it bigger and more powerful, and therefore more expensive, and hope it works." Do you not see deep-seated problems of jurisdiction in whether people are willing to submit themselves and others in their country to an international tribunal rather than try them themselves?

Kate Allen: I hope that I did not give the impression that the way to resolve this is to make things bigger and spend more money. There are really serious issues for the international community to address that are over and above money issues. We would obviously look to national courts to address issues, and the International Criminal Court is there for situations in which national courts are either unwilling or unable. That is the thinking behind the need for an international jurisdiction. In those areas, the court and the tribunals that have been set up need good minds and good politics to help them resolve issues and not let them get in the way in the formative years.

Tom Porteous: It is not just a question of hoping it works in the future. Looking at international justice in the broad rather than just at the International Criminal Court, which is just part of the broader picture, it is already working. The era of Idi Amin and Pinochet, when dictators could get away with human rights abuses, is gone. People such as Mengistu from Ethiopia, who is now sitting in Zimbabwe, and Hissène Habré, the former dictator of Chad, have sleepless nights because of the advances in international justice in recent years. International justice is catching up with them.

The International Criminal Court is part of that picture, but there is also the court in Sierra Leone, which has made huge progress in the past year with the arrest of Charles Taylor. The British Government have played a crucial role there. There is also Yugoslavia, which we have discussed, the courts in Cambodia and the trial of Saddam Hussein-we have serious reservations about that but nevertheless it was there and is part of the same picture.

Some of this is taking place within the context of national jurisdictions but it is still international justice, addressing the worst crimes. As Kate said, there is also the principle of universal jurisdiction, which is that for the worst crimes against humanity, national courts in other countries have jurisdiction. That is working quite well, and the reason why Pinochet died a broken man was universal jurisdiction. A whole lot of cases were taken against him in the Chilean courts, not only for human rights abuses but for corruption. So the work of international justice in all these different areas over the last few years is actually catalysing work in national courts to address some of these very serious crimes, which need to be addressed if we are to have a more stable world.

Q13 Chairman: On that specific point, as part of the package to get Charles Taylor out of Nigeria to The Hague the British Government offered to allow him to serve his sentence in this country. Do you think that that offer was an important part of the package? If so, does that have general implications for the future, so that people will agree to these packages on the basis of the countries that they will be imprisoned in being more amenable to their human rights than some others, and that they would rather take part in a process on that basis?

Tom Porteous: The offer was positive. We do have concerns about the fact that the trial of Charles Taylor is now going to take place so far from the region. It is very important that these cases should actually have relevance to the communities where the abuses were committed. It would have been better if Charles Taylor had been tried in Sierra Leone. However, we understand the logistical and political problems surrounding the idea of having such a trial, because Sierra Leone is still in a very unstable state. None the less, Charles Taylor needs to be brought to justice. So there is a trade-off there, and we think that it was probably the right decision to have him tried at The Hague. Therefore, as part of that package, the British offer that he should serve his sentence in the UK, if he is convicted, was a deal-breaker in a sense, and consequently very important.

Q14 Mr. Illsley: I appreciate all that you have said on this subject, but I would like to return to the point about Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. Is there not something wrong with the system when a small country like Serbia can defeat it by keeping those two guys out of the clutches of the international community for so long? If-as we have just heard-the tribunal stands down in 2010, they can probably do what they are doing now for the next three years and get to 2010 and walk away from the international community, not having been in front of that court.

Kate Allen: That is where we are saying that our views about winding down the court are important. There needs to be the means to bring those two men to trial, whenever they are caught. It is not at all acceptable that somehow they could sit this out until the court is disbanded. There needs to be the ability for that court to reconvene, to bring those two to account. That must happen, or there must be other means.

Q15 Mr. Illsley: The only way you can do that is through military action. That is the only way that you will get Serbia to surrender the two men, because every other idea has failed-sanctions and threats have failed. The international community will obviously not be willing to have a military police force set up to back up the international court. We have seen examples of that recently. I just do not see how you can enforce the system otherwise. I will not pursue the point, but it seems to me that, if a small country like Serbia can keep two of the biggest criminals away from the tribunal, obviously other, far bigger countries that stand against the tribunal can probably do the same thing. It really is worrying that, on the first example, the system can be outwitted.

Kate Allen: It is interesting to think back to the pressure that was placed on Croatia, in relation to its desire to become part of the EU, with regard to how it was handling these issues, and Croatia improved the way that it was handling them. Pressure must be exerted on Serbia. Obviously, given the election results recently, that will be difficult, but I think that that is how the international community needs, consistently and over time, to bring pressure to bear to ensure that those two men do not feel that there is some way of sitting it out, and so that Serbia understands its role in ensuring that they are brought to justice.

Q16 Mr. Illsley: I think that Serbia understands its role.

Kate Allen: Well, 70% of people did not vote for the extreme right in the recent elections, so there is obviously something there that can be held on to.

 

Chairman: We must move on to the subject of Iraq.

Q17 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In Iraq, there has obviously been a terrifying breakdown in civil order. There are many critics of allied policy on the Committee, including myself. I would like to ask you, Mr. Porteous, whether the comment in your submission goes a little bit far in saying: "The UK...is propping up a government that is deeply implicated in escalating sectarian violence, massacres and torture." The alternative to propping up a Government is not to prop them up. If they collapse, would not that make the human rights situation even worse?

Tom Porteous: The challenge is to ensure that the Iraqi Government, whom we are supporting to the tune of I do not know how many millions of pounds, are not implicated in these massive human rights abuses. I am not saying that they are directly implicated, but there is serious evidence that death squads are operating within the institutions of the state. The US Government have thousands of troops on the ground in Iraq; we have troops on the ground in Iraq. We should be doing more to ensure that our allies in Iraq are not engaged in human rights abuses. The fact that we are not doing that is undermining our credibility, not only in Iraq but throughout the middle east.

Q18 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So you are not for withdrawal then? We ought to go in even harder to get the Government to assert themselves?

Tom Porteous: I am saying that we should ensure that the Government in Iraq live up to their obligations with regard to human rights and the rule of law.

Q19 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Excuse me, but that is very easy to say. I want to tease out of you exactly what we ought to be doing. The colonial solution is that we should go in and just do it for them, but if we are to get a representative Government, however inadequate, surely we have to stay there. What is your policy?

Tom Porteous: With respect, it is not for Human Rights Watch to sort out the mess in Iraq. Frankly, I do not see any easy solutions. I do not see any solutions at all to the situation in Iraq. It is not our business to be setting the policy of what should be done in this terrible mess. It is our job to monitor human rights abuses, which we have been doing in Iraq since 2003 and long before that, and we are seriously concerned by the extent to which the Government there are implicated more and more in serious human rights abuses. It is worth pointing out. People are turning up dead on the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities with signs of terrible torture, such as electric drills through their heads. That is being done by allies of the Government whom we support. That needs to be underlined. I do not know what the solution is, but that situation needs to underlined. That is what I am doing.

Q20 Sandra Osborne: Could you confirm some of the details of the human rights abuses that are happening? There have been a number of reports discussed in the UK in advance of today's debate on Iraq. Do you have any idea of the number of detainees and the number of women among them?

Kate Allen: The figures that we have on the number of people detained by the multinational forces are as at the end of 2006. The figure that we have is 14,534 people being detained by the multinational force, of whom 101 are held by the UK. Some of those people have been held for more than two years. I am afraid that I do not have the figures to show how many of them are women.

The detainees have been held without charge and without trial, some for more than two years as I said. They are not able to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. There are also claims of abuse and allegations that claims of abuse have not been thoroughly investigated. The UK has failed to establish prompt, independent, thorough investigations and to ensure that they take place. The situation concerning detention by the multinational forces is very serious. The situation in Iraqi prisons is also dire. As Tom outlined, the brutality of what is happening under the Iraqi Government and within prisons is an issue that causes us great concern.

Q21 Sandra Osborne: I understand that 250 journalists and people involved in the media have been assassinated and that, in terms of right of assembly, peaceful demonstrations are quite often broken up by firing, including at women and children. Can you confirm whether or not that is the case and whether you think that the Iraqi Government are implicated?

Kate Allen: We can certainly confirm that that is the case. Of course, the ability for people to move around, do their jobs as journalists and find out what is going on is totally compromised in a society in which, last year, 34,400 violent civilian killings took place. Those are the UN's figures. It is extremely difficult and demonstrations are broken up.

As for the impact on women, I do not have the figures in respect of women in detention. The FCO's report is strong on human rights and on the issue of woman, but there are some very serious concerns about the way in which women and girls are able to live their lives, such as pressure around dress codes. There are very serious concerns about honour killings and domestic violence. Women are also being targeted by armed groups that have killed, raped and abducted them. The situation for women in Iraq is extremely dangerous.

Tom Porteous: I would completely support that. I add that it is very difficult to confirm what is going on in Iraq at the moment because of the insecurity there. We had a researcher there between 2003 and the middle of last year, who was very courageously living and operating outside of the green zone. She wanted to stay, but we had to withdraw her because of her safety. She is now operating out of Amman. It is really very very difficult for human rights organisations like ourselves to actually do the work that we need to do in Iraq at the moment. The figures needed to be treated with a certain amount of caution. We know that there is a massive crisis at the moment.

Q22 Sandra Osborne: Finally, in terms of the conditions that you have just described, what is the position with internally displaced people? Is that really what you were referring to or can you give us an outline of what the position is with them?

Kate Allen: Again, the UN zone figures for 2006 were 470,000 internally displaced people. I completely agree with Tom's comments about the difficulty of getting information, but with half a million people in one year displaced and reports of a total of 2 million, that is a massive hardship on a civilian population-an absolutely massive hardship.

Tom Porteous: On that issue of displacement, there are also 2 million Iraqi refugees now, mostly in Syria and Jordan. Initially, those refugees were welcomed with a certain amount of Jordan and Syria both living up to their obligations under international law with respect to refugees. That is increasingly becoming more difficult because of the sheer numbers and because of the attitude of Jordanians and Syrians who are seeing their infrastructure being overwhelmed by Iraqis. The United States and the UK, which started the whole thing, are not doing what they should to support Syria and Jordan in dealing with these refugees. Considering how many refugees there are now in the region, the numbers being accepted for asylum in the United States and the United Kingdom is really paltry.

Q23 Chairman: May I take you back to the question of detainees? Presumably, the figure of 14,500 that you quoted is constantly changing because, from time to time, people are handed over to the Iraqi authorities for them to put such people through the local process. Have you any figures of how many people have actually gone through that process? Because I visited the camp and detention facility at Shaibah 2004, I know that the numbers at one time were significantly higher under British control than they are now. Can you give us an indication of the throughput and what has happened when people are handed over to the Iraqi authorities? You seemed to raise the concern that things might be worse under the Iraqi authorities than they would be for people detained by the British or the Americans. Presumably, some of the people detained by the British and the Americans are actually leading Ba'athists who might well be in a vulnerable position if they were handed over to a Shi'a dominated Government.

Kate Allen: I am afraid that I do not have those figures. If we do have any information that we can share with the Committee we will get back to you in writing. It is common sense to think that there has been a throughput and that the overall numbers over the last few years will be significantly greater than the figure I gave you from the end of 2006. When you look at those figures, there are a huge number of people from one date. If we assume that kind of throughput there is a massive sense of injustice being built up about the way in which people are being detained. I do not have information on what is happening to people who are handed over to the Iraqis, but if we do have that, we will get back to you.

Q24 Chairman: May I touch on the process of trials in Iraq? Obviously, Saddam Hussein was executed and subsequent to that the charges and the trial relating to what many people regarded as one of the most serious crimes-the Anfal campaign and the gassing of the Kurds-was dropped. Do you think it was regrettable that in the case of Anfal and the treatment of the Marsh Arabs-two of the highest profile and most terrible crimes of the Saddam era-he was not brought to justice for those events?

Tom Porteous: Yes. We have a long list of complaints about the judicial process against Saddam Hussein and his henchmen. Human Rights Watch and others documented, in particular, the crimes committed by the Ba'athist regime against the Kurds during the Anfal campaign. For a long time, we had been calling for Saddam Hussein to be brought to justice for those crimes. Therefore we are disappointed that his execution has brought an end to, at least, his trial for those crimes. However, one should not overlook the bigger point that the whole judicial process against the former members of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq has been hijacked by a sectarian Government for its own political reasons-as is quite clear from the manner of the execution and of the appeals process. Therefore, the trials of those who will still be brought to justice for the Anfal atrocities are now completely prejudiced. It is difficult to see, now that the Government have revealed the extent to which they are prepared to intervene and interfere in the due process in Iraq, how anyone will be able to take the rest of the Ba'athist trials remotely seriously.

Q25 Chairman: Would it have been better to have established an international or special tribunal for Iraq, as in Sierra Leone, rather than allowing this trial to be conducted on a national basis? Presumably, we thought it was part of the self-determination of the Iraqi people and their elected Government and authorities.

Tom Porteous: Indeed, that is what we urged in 2003. We urged for the establishment of an international tribunal and when that was rejected, we urged for much greater involvement than there was in the Iraqi high tribunal. Alternatively, we suggested some kind of mixed system with international judges sitting side by side with Iraqi judges. Our advice was turned down. We thought that we would go along with the idea of the Iraqi high tribunal and monitored the trial. We were there for 80% of the time and, frankly, at the end of that process, having seen the manner of the execution and the shortcomings of the appeals process, we feel that we were vindicated in having urged an international tribunal for Iraq.

Kate Allen: May I make a comment about the execution? The appalling pictures and what happened in the execution of Saddam Hussein are the tip of the iceberg. We are regrettably seeing the return in Iraq to a culture of widespread executions and we have information of at least 65 executions since September 2005: a return to the extensive use of the death penalty, obviously after some very flawed trials.

Chairman: Let us move on to discuss Afghanistan.

Q26 Mr. Purchase: On the vexed and difficult question of Afghanistan and human rights, both organisations highlighted the fact that many positions of power in Afghanistan are held by serial human rights abusers. However, we also know that the Government of Afghanistan are in a precarious position. Their writ does not run much further than Kabul but, in province after province, there are the difficulties that you have drawn attention to. As time goes on, what do you think the position will be in trying to hold to account those in positions of power now whom you accuse of human rights abuses?

Tom Porteous: It is not just us who accuse them of human rights abuses. There are many allegations against people like Abdul Rabb al-Rasul Sayyaf and General Rashid Dostum and others. Their abuses are well documented by now. The problem is that Hamid Karzai is worried about the international commitment to Afghanistan and he needs to have an insurance policy for the post-international involvement period. That insurance policy is doing deals with bad guys. That is why he has struck up such alliances with warlords, tribal militias and drugs dealers. This crucial problem is being overlooked by the international coalition of forces in Afghanistan.

We are focused on the south and rightly so because the threat of Taliban resurgence is real. At the moment, we are in a lull because of the season; it is not the war-fighting season. The predictions are that next year could even be worse than last year, so we need to address the problem of Taliban resurgence, but we need to understand why Afghan people are going over to the Taliban. In the battle for hearts and minds, if we are allying ourselves with the Government, who are allying themselves with people who are well known to have committed human rights abuses during the civil war in the 1990s, that is not a great way of winning hearts and minds. The other way of not winning hearts and minds is failing to provide compensation to albeit inadvertent victims of the aerial bombardment by NATO forces.

Q27 Mr. Purchase: May I put to you that when you ask why people are going over to the Taliban, the major cause may be that the Taliban are paying people to come over to them and that they are paying them more than they would get if they were recruits in the police? Do you think that hearts and minds may have little to do with it and putting food in the stomachs of children might have a lot to do with it?

Tom Porteous: That may be so, in which case we should be doing more to address what is driving the Afghan economy, which is the drugs trade. That is in the hands of criminals who are allied to the Government, both on the side of the Taliban but also on the side of the warlords and other tribal militias who are allied to the Government. Therefore, the whole economy is outside the control of the central Government. As you say, the writ of the central Government does not extend beyond Kabul, so that point needs to be addressed. The extent to which the criminal economy has taken over Afghanistan gives the Taliban a chance to buy people over to them, just as it gives a chance to the other warlords in the north to buy people over to their side. It is a very difficult problem.

Q28 Mr. Purchase: It certainly is. Can I move on a little further? The suggestion was that 1,000 civilians were killed in 2006 as a result of activities such as the American bombing and all the problems that you mentioned. What can the international forces do to give more protection to civilians and, indeed, to non-governmental-organisation workers?

Tom Porteous: Obviously, there is a concern on the part of NATO forces to minimise casualties on our own side. The UK is doing a good job in stepping up to the plate and providing the troops on the ground and the leadership of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. Clearly they have a responsibility to minimise their own casualties, but the use of aerial bombardment in the last season of fighting against Taliban forces unfortunately led to, in our view, excessive civilian casualties. We think it is very important that compensation should be paid promptly to the families of those who were killed and injured, in order not to alienate entirely the civilian population in those areas. We also think that, as far as possible, military operations should be done on the ground, rather than using aerial bombardment, which should be a last resort.

Kate Allen: May I comment on the situation of women in Afghanistan? This Committee has traditionally shown real concern about what is happening. The international community made promises-well, promises were made to the women of Afghanistan-but we are not at all convinced by the FCO's report, which talked about marked improvements in women's rights. We produced a report in October 2006 on violence against women in Kandahar, which followed the killing of Safiye Amajan, the provincial head of the Department of Women's Affairs. She was killed in Kandahar in September 2006. We are aware of systematic and widespread violence and discrimination against women in both public and private, a rise in honour killings, abductions and rape, and also a rise in the self-immolation of women attempting to escape from their appalling situations by killing themselves. I think that the FCO's report has not sufficiently highlighted the severity of the situation facing women.

Q29 Mr. Purchase: I suspect that, following a recent visit to Afghanistan, our concerns about women and girls will be reflected in our work in future.

Might I move on to the memorandum of understanding on torture? The Government's position has been strongly criticised both by Human Rights Watch and by Amnesty, which have suggested that the Government have tried to water down their commitment. The Government suggest that our MOUs take full account of our international human rights obligations and that they will not deport an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing that they are at risk of torture. However, you continue with your criticism. I wonder whether you can accept the Government's statements or have you more to tell us this morning on why the Government are watering down their commitment to human rights through these MOUs?

Kate Allen: MOUs have been signed with Lebanon, Libya and Jordan, and letters of deportation have been agreed with Algeria, all countries where Amnesty International and others have documented the use of torture. These are all countries that have signed the convention against torture but routinely use torture widely. We simply do not think that those MOUs are worth the paper that they are written on when you see the way in which those particular countries fail to address the issue of torture.

Last year, Amnesty met its partners in each of those countries and more broadly with the NGO world in north Africa and the middle east to discuss the British Government's approach to the matter, their policy of trying to sign MOUs with a range of countries and their use of NGOs to monitor people who are returned. There was total agreement that the British Government should not be making such MOUs and that it would be much more effective if they addressed the use of torture by each of those countries more systematically. They agreed also that doing deals over individuals was undermining the work of bona fide NGOs, with which we met, and which felt very exposed by what the British Government are attempting to do.

Tom Porteous: May I add two points? First, torture is a very serious criminal activity. People who do it, do so in secret and often in ways that cannot be detected. So it is actually very difficult to sign an MOU with a state that does not acknowledge that it does it. Secondly, diplomatic assurances do not work. We have documented at least three cases where they have not worked. One was that of the Egyptian Ahmed Agiza who was arrested by the Swedish authorities and taken by the CIA to Egypt where he was tortured. The second was that of Maher Arar who was picked up by the US authorities as he crossed the border from Canada-he was a Canadian-Syrian citizen-and sent to Syria where he was tortured. Subsequently, a Canadian commission of inquiry discovered that he was completely innocent of any of the allegations against him. The third was that of Rasul Kudaev who was sent from Guantanamo Bay back to Russia where he said himself he would be severely mistreated, as indeed he was by the Russian authorities.

Q30 Mr. Purchase: We keep using the word "secret", but clearly these things are not secret because you know all about them. It follows that the British Government also know all about them. Do you believe that the British Government are being deceitful in the use of MOUs? Do you accuse the Government of outright deceit? If you know about the practices of certain countries with which we have signed MOUs, the Government must also know. Are you making an allegation? If so, evidence is required.

Kate Allen: I think that the allegation is one of wishful thinking. The British Government hope that, by signing MOUs, they are protecting the individuals returned. Our view is that they will not be protected by those MOUs, that if they are detained and imprisoned upon their return to countries with which MOUs are signed, they will disappear into the prison system, and that they might well be tortured and unable to talk to anyone about the torture because of threats to their families. The bona fide NGOs that the British Government are hoping will do the independent monitoring will not go anywhere near the job. In Libya, the NGO that has signed up to do it is called the Gaddafi foundation, which I think gives an indication of how independent from the Government it is. Those are our concerns. People will be exposed to torture and if it happens, the rest of us will not know about it.

Q31 Mr. Purchase: Are you saying that those are your fears about what might happen, or are you saying that despite the existence of an MOU, it has already happened?

Kate Allen: I think that we are saying both. Tom Porteous has given you examples of when it has happened in the past, and I will add an example to those. In 2001, Sweden expelled two asylum seekers to Egypt, relying on diplomatic assurances to cover the risk of torture. Both men were held incommunicado in detention in Egypt and say that they were tortured while they were in custody. Between us, we have some practical examples of MOUs used by different Governments that have not protected people.

Q32 Chairman: I put it to you that the essence of the problem is that such individuals are regarded by the British Government as a threat to our national security but the Government do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to put them on successful criminal trial in this country. We have seen what happened with the debate about control orders and so on. What is the alternative to obtaining a memorandum of understanding and sending them back to their countries of origin? Is it to release into the community in this country people who are regarded as dangerous and a threat to our national security?

Kate Allen: We have in this country something like 20-plus people being held under control orders. Many of them have spent the last five years in Belmarsh prison or under control orders-basically, internment-in their own homes. I have met some of those people in their homes and talked to them. I have discovered that in many cases, they have not even been interrogated by the police. The way to deal with it is to ensure that what evidence is there is used to bring them before a court and charge them. If there is not evidence after five years of holding people in different circumstances where they do not know what the charges against them are or what the evidence might or might not be, our view is that they should be charged and brought before a court.

Q33 Chairman: Or released?

Kate Allen: Or released, if there is not evidence after five years.

Q34 Chairman: Leaving aside five years, you are saying in essence that if there is not evidence to bring them to trial, they should be released?

Kate Allen: Absolutely.

Tom Porteous: I think that Kate is absolutely right about the alternatives, but one also needs to think about the long-term consequences for the UK of being seen to undermine the global ban on torture by sending people back to countries where they are very likely to be tortured. How does that make the UK look, particularly in the middle east where it is so important, in the struggle against Islamist ideology, for us to be seen to be acting according to the rules?

Q35 Chairman: I will just throw in a question. How would you feel if one of these people, who was then released, was subsequently involved in a terrorist outrage, either in this country or somewhere else? We have been made aware that that does happen sometimes. Is there not a dilemma? Is it not much more complicated than an either/or option? That is the problem that the British Government and others are grappling with.

Kate Allen: On the way to give evidence today, I was very struck when I read the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions on some of the issues-that in the war on terror, we are at risk of abandoning our values, which is obviously one of the aims of terrorists. Holding people for prolonged periods with no charges when the entire apparatus of the British state has had the ability to find the evidence, and then signing a memorandum of understanding with a country that is a known torturer and returning people to situations in which they might be tortured certainly does no good for our values.

Q36 Mr. Purchase: May I ask a question on rendition and extraordinary rendition? We shall not go through what we mean by rendition, as there is no legal definition. However, on 20 January 2006, Jack Straw conducted a search of relevant files, stretching back to 1997, to look for instances where UK territory or airspace might have been used for rendition operations. He reported that he had found four cases, all in 1998. Two of those cases were accepted and two were rejected by the British Government. He said that there was no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or its overseas territories since 1998. However, Amnesty believes that the investigation was conducted inadequately. What evidence do you have to say that it was inadequately conducted and what more can you say to us about this issue?

Kate Allen: Amnesty's view is that the British Government have "failed to adequately investigate the use of UK airspace and airports to facilitate flights by CIA-chartered aircraft". So we have circumstantial evidence that flights have used UK airports. We are not saying that we know that there were people on board, but we do know that these are the same flights that have either taken people or were returning from taking people who had been rendered.

It is also useful to look at the comments in the draft November 2006 report by the European Parliament's temporary committee on rendition, which deplored the UK Government's co-operation with it and expressed serious concerns "about stopovers by CIA-operated aircraft at UK airports which were linked with rendition circuits." There is a body of evidence that the UK Government need to ensure is effectively investigated.

We are, of course, in different territory since President Bush's speech on 6 September. We know from that speech that he was acknowledging the existence of CIA secret detention centres and the rendition network that supported them. In fact, he also went on to defend the alternative interrogation techniques, which we would consider to be torture, which he said were used to break the resistance of detainees. We at Amnesty would be very pleased to see a forceful statement by the British Government about their views on the admission by President Bush that rendition has been taking place and that there have been secret detention centres, which are totally illegal. Such secret detention and enforced disappearances are crimes under international law and it would be good to hear the British Government saying something very publicly and forcibly about that particular admission.

Tom Porteous: I completely agree with what Kate has just said. I simply add that that report by the European Parliament's temporary committee on illegal CIA activity in Europe makes some serious recommendations about how we can prevent a recurrence of the activity that clearly has happened in the past, maybe not in the UK-we do not have complete evidence for that-but certainly in Italy, in the case of Abu Omar. We hope that the UK Government will take those recommendations on board.

Kate Allen: May I add that, of course, the UK Government have not answered the questions on the possibility of complicity in the US renditions of the two UK residents, al-Rawi and el-Banna, from Gambia to Guantanamo. We would be very interested to see an investigation into the UK involvement, or otherwise, in those two particular cases.

 

Q37 Mr. Purchase: You mentioned that it was circumstantial evidence. Do you have any evidence that you have gathered yourselves or are you relying wholly on reports from, for instance, the European Parliament?

Kate Allen: We have some evidence ourselves and I shall certainly make sure that that is forwarded to the Committee.

Mr. Purchase: That would be helpful.

Q38 Sandra Osborne: Since the US Government have admitted to what is illegal activity, what action do you think should be taken against them?

Kate Allen: I think it would be very helpful if Governments such as our own voiced their views on that. It is interesting that that admission was made on 6 September 2006 and we have not heard the British Government's response. Unless the US's closest allies start to address such issues, it is extremely difficult to know how international pressure will be brought to bear.

Q39 Chairman: We need to move on to some specific countries. It may be possible for us to get through most that we want to discuss but, if not, we will have to write to you on specific issues.

May I begin with the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The recent elections, in which Joseph Kabila was successful against his vice-president, are worrying in that the country was totally split geographically. Do they represent a turning point? Do you think that human rights in the DRC will be significantly better after that democratic process than they have been in the past?

Tom Porteous: The elections were a landmark, let us say, and an important one, but elections on their own do not bring democracy, particularly to a country that has essentially never had democracy. The elections were marked by serious events-violence and human rights abuses. As you mentioned, the country is split on tribal and ethnic lines. Particularly in the east, there is still no real peace and the sort of massacres, lootings, killings and disappearances that we have seen for so many years have continued.

We have talked about international justice, and the International Criminal Court has played an important role in Congo. An important point that we would like to bring home to you is that there are going to be calls, potentially in Sudan and elsewhere, for the United Nations to send peacekeepers here and there. We feel that it is very important for the UN force in the DRC, which has played an important role in very difficult circumstances, to be maintained to ensure peace and stability in the coming period. It cannot simply be withdrawn. We cannot just say, "Okay, we've fixed that. Let's get out." The DRC is still in intensive care and there are still worrying reports of human rights abuses in various parts of the country, and the international community needs to stay.

Kate Allen: May I make three very specific points? The national programme of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration into civilian life has to deal with something like 150,000 fighters. We reported at the end of last year on thousands of children who are still with armed groups and are not part of that programme. A practical suggestion would be to ensure that elementary education until the age of 14 is supported by the international community. We would also like to see a co-ordinated response to the medical emergency that follows the large-scale rape that has taken place and the prevalence of HIV and AIDS. Finally, Control Arms researchers found as late as September last year, in Ituri, internationally manufactured small arms. We must ensure that such arms do not continue to flow into the DRC.

Q40 Chairman: You mentioned the UN. The European Union played an important role in the process, and we know that the Germans in particular committed to the peace missions. Is there a specific EU role in the absence of effective UN or African Union operations?

Tom Porteous: The UN is there and playing a crucial role. The EU has been playing a subsidiary role to the UN-not just the Germans but the British have played an incredibly useful role in the DRC, and we commend that. The EU could take on some of the load from the UN if it is seen that the UN is needed elsewhere. Frankly, I think that the UN probably needs to stay.

I would like to make one other point. As I said, the UK has been playing an extremely useful role in the DRC, and we commend the report's entry on the DRC. However, there is one point about the exploitation of mineral resources. DRC is an immensely wealthy country-I am afraid that that is probably one of the reasons why it has been in such turmoil in recent years. International companies, including British companies, have been involved in the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC, as was documented by the UN panel report in 2000. That needs to be addressed. We need not just to talk about corruption on the side of the Africans but to make sure that we in the west address misbehaviour on the part of western companies that are engaging in commercial activities in countries in which there are serious human rights abuses and conflict.

Q41 Sandra Osborne: May I take you to Somalia? The FCO report does not include Somalia as a country of concern, but obviously the situation there is deteriorating. Do you think that it should be included, and what do you see as the major human rights concerns in Somalia at the moment?

Kate Allen: The immediate concern is the US air strikes that took place earlier this month. We have reports of at least 30 civilians who died in that strike, and we are very concerned about that. We are all aware that in Somalia there has been no rule of law in the south. Humanitarian access has been impaired and NGO and UN staff have been at risk of kidnap. Half a million people in internally displaced camps and Kenya closing its borders cause us huge concern about the safety of civilians at the current time. I think that we need to see a greater focus on that.

Also, with Eritrea and Ethiopia backing different sides in Somalia, there is the potential for the situation to become a real regional conflict. If we go back to those issues of prevention, this is certainly one of those times when the international community needs to pay really close attention to what is happening there at the moment.

Tom Porteous: The fact that Somalia is not included as a "country of concern" indicates the extent to which Somalia simply fell off the radar for the international community over recent years. We are now seeing the consequences of that. In the meantime, almost unbeknown to the rest of the world, the Islamist movement in Somalia became a very important political force. That then became tied up in the whole so-called war on terror. The Ethiopians, sponsored by the US, went in, defeated the Islamists and they are now pulling out. Who is going to fill that vacuum? What is going to happen now? The Islamists are still quite popular. Are they going to get back in? They are popular for good reasons, by the way, because they provided an element of security and justice in many parts of the country, although we have very serious concerns about some elements of their policies-sharia punishments, the forbidding of freedom of assembly and of expression and so forth.

The crucial question is what is going to happen now in Somalia. Somalia has been without a central Government for 15 years. The population is vulnerable to any future conflict, and we are very concerned that this recent fighting is just the first round of another very serious bout of fighting in Somalia. The consequences for the population of Somalia and for the region would be devastating. Kate Allen has already mentioned the issue of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The proxy war being fought in Somalia by those two countries could spark a renewal of the fighting on the border of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The last thing that Kenya and the other neighbours of Somalia need at the moment is another influx of refugees from that country. They cannot even cope with the refugees who arrived in previous waves.

Chairman: Still on Somalia, briefly.

Q42 Mr. Hamilton: Very briefly. Amid the chaos that is Somalia and its lack of central Government, there is a small haven of peace and calm in Somaliland. Should we recognise Somaliland separately? Can the lessons of peace and democracy in Somaliland be applied to the rest of the country? Do you know anything about Somaliland and how we could focus on the positives found there?

Kate Allen: Certainly, by comparison Somaliland shows much more stability and a more functioning Government. We have lesser concerns about human rights in Somaliland, but they are still concerns. I do not want to comment on the issue of recognition.

Tom Porteous: If the situation in southern Somalia is not sorted out in a satisfactory manner-it does not look likely-or, in other words, if the Government do not establish their authority throughout the country, and if there is further conflict, the question of the recognition of Somaliland will be put very firmly on the international agenda.

Kate Allen: The other point is that Somaliland will be affected by what is happening in Somalia-it is not able to protect itself from what is happening in the south.

Q43 Sandra Osborne: You have referred to Sudan, but it would appear that the Sudanese Government are seeking substantial concessions and compromises before they will agree to a UN deployment in Darfur. Is there a danger that any agreement will be so watered down as to be ineffective? If the Sudanese Government agree to a UN deployment in Darfur, will there be so many conditions placed on it as to render it ineffective?

Kate Allen: I hope that that is not the case, but the situation has gone on for several years without effective intervention. Amnesty began voicing its concerns about what was happening in Darfur in January 2003. It has consistently raised the issue with the international community since. It was told that by raising concerns, it was jeopardising the north-south peace process and that it should deal with the issue of Darfur privately.

Our organisation produced report after report. In 2004 it produced a report on the extensive use of rape as a weapon of war. The Sudanese Government in that period never felt under any pressure to deal with the violations that were happening in Darfur. Now that we have international pressure, we need to see it through and ensure that it continues. We need to make sure that those who are yet to be convinced that pressure needs to be put on Sudan are brought into line. Over 200,000 people dead as a result of disease; 85,000 civilians killed; massive use of rape; 2 million people forcibly displaced: the international community has got to make sure that pressure is put on the Sudanese Government to allow a UN force to take over from the African Union, so that people can be protected. The alternative, referring to the figures I mentioned, is that the extensive and horrific human suffering will continue.

Q44 Sandra Osborne: The UN's chief humanitarian co-ordinator has stated, "I think some of the Arab countries and Asian countries have not really understood that we're in free fall. It's not a steady deterioration. It's a free fall and it includes Darfur, eastern Chad, northern Central African Republic." Obviously, that suggests that the conflict is spilling over into other countries in the region. Do you concur with that view? What do you feel the dangers of the situation are?

Kate Allen: I absolutely concur. Our research has been on the Chad-Sudan border, and we are very aware of the way in which the situation is impacting on civilians in Chad. This is something that has the potential to spread further.

Tom Porteous: It is worth pointing out that the British Government are rather badly placed to address the regional dimensions of the situation in Darfur because the UK does not have diplomatic representation-it does not have a physical embassy in Chad-so they deal with it from elsewhere, I think from Cameroon. They rely on the French to provide them with intelligence. The French have been in Chad for a long time.

This is an area where the EU could be playing a much more effective role. It is a pity in the sense that the EU has said, "Oh well, we will leave the Darfur dossier to the UN Security Council." The EU could complement the UN in Darfur, even if only in terms of analysis, particularly in addressing the regional dimensions of this conflict.

The other point I wanted to make was on the comprehensive peace agreement between North Sudan and South Sudan. The Sudanese learned two lessons from that. On the one hand, the rebels in Darfur saw that, if they wanted a slice of the cake in Sudan, they needed to take up arms. It is no coincidence that the rebellion started just as the comprehensive peace agreement was reaching its conclusion. The other lesson, which the Sudanese Government drew from it, was that they could get away with human rights abuses with impunity because nowhere in the CPA does it address the issue of the human rights abuses that took place in the south, which are just as bad as the abuses taking place in Darfur.

As we look at what to do about Darfur, we need to take into account those lessons that have been learned by the Sudanese Government. First, an agreement for Sudan has to be comprehensive, and, secondly, it has to address the issue of impunity for human rights abuses.

Q45 Chairman: When you say "take on", is the big problem here that the African Union is not strong enough and is also internally divided, that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is protecting the Sudanese regime internationally and that the Darfur peace agreement 2006 has only been signed by one of the rebel factions and the others have not signed? Is there not an argument that we should get away from that agreement, start again and get all the factions around the table on a new basis? Otherwise, the Sudanese Government think that they can use that agreement as a protection in international terms by saying, "We have signed up to a peace agreement. Therefore, we can take on all the other groups," with the humanitarian consequences you mentioned.

Tom Porteous: There certainly needs to be a revisiting of the Darfur peace agreement. It should start again. The process needs to be reinvigorated and it was very disappointing that, immediately after the signing of the DPA last year, the US negotiator Robert Zellik, the Under-Secretary of State, disappeared from the scene and took up a job in Wall street. That was an indication of the lack of real commitment on the part of the United States to making the DPA work. The United Kingdom, although they are doing so now, rather late in the day, should also have focused on making the DPA work. Implementation is absolutely crucial.

Q46 Chairman: Is not the essence of the problem-whatever the United States says, whatever the UK says, whatever the European Union does-ultimately that there has to be a solution that takes account of the aspirations of the different groups in that region? One of the problems is that they are not all in the negotiating process.

Kate Allen: Absolutely, but in the meantime the African Union has been absolutely clear that it wants the UN to take over its mission to provide protection for the civilians under attack while that process goes on. That has to happen. We cannot wait for a diplomatic solution or for those negotiations. Civilians are dying and there needs to be protection for them.

Q47 Chairman: I must press you on this. It is all very well to say that the UN should take over but the Sudanese Government have been resisting that approach. They have basically wanted a weak UN operation and feel able to resist because they have regional and international support from a number of countries.

Tom Porteous: You made an important point about the fragmentation of the rebel groups in Darfur. Last week's Darfur peace agreement also brought everyone together but failed at the last minute and then the whole thing fell apart. The fact that the international community did not follow up meant that the rebel groups further fragmented.

It will now be much more difficult to bring them on board. However, that has to be the solution. The UK Government are absolutely right when they say that a political solution is required for this problem. We have got to bring the Darfur rebels back together in a united negotiating front. That will be very difficult. The Sudanese Government are absolutely brilliant at divide and rule, which has been their policy in the south, in Darfur, and would be their policy elsewhere in the country if they were to face a similar problem. It is an incredibly difficult problem but one that none the less needs to be addressed.

Chairman: I am afraid that we now have to move on to Zimbabwe, which might be-I do not know-an even more difficult problem.

Q48 Mr. Hamilton: It is just as bad. No doubt many of us, as constituency Members, meet refugees and asylum seekers who have come from Zimbabwe to seek refuge in the United Kingdom from the oppression of Robert Mugabe. We have heard first-hand accounts of the terrible human rights violations going on in that country.

One of the most recent, which attracted quite a bit of publicity, was Operation Murambatsvina-or "clear out the filth"-which has made approximately 20% of the population homeless, most of whom have yet to be rehoused. We know that Mugabe has practised torture regularly. This month he shut down two genuinely independent newspapers. Human Rights Watch's world report 2007 provides a litany of human rights abuses carried out in Zimbabwe. It highlights the "rising incidence of torture" particularly against trade unionists and students.

In our last report on the subject, the Foreign Affairs Committee recommended that the UK start a campaign for referral of Mugabe to the International Criminal Court for his "manifold and monstrous" crimes. I wondered whether you thought that a campaign for the referral of Mugabe to the ICC by the UN Security Council would be effective and whether it would also make effective use of the Foreign Office resources, or is there more that we can do?

Kate Allen: I am not sure about the referral to the International Criminal Court. However, you have very eloquently outlined the human rights situation in Zimbabwe. It includes the manipulation of food supplies, which has led to real suffering. There is also harassment of NGOs so that the people trying to confront some of this are coming under attack too. The FCO report has a very significant and critical section on Zimbabwe which matches Amnesty's concerns.

I think that there is a limit to what the UK Government can do on this particular issue given the colonial past. We are very disappointed by South African quiet diplomacy over the past seven years and would say that it has not produced anything, but we are also critical of the silence of most other African countries. If the British Government were to put their effort into talking to other African countries about the ways in which they might bring pressure to bear upon the Mugabe regime, that might be one effective way of taking some of this forward and is something that we would like to see.

Q49 Mr. Hamilton: Three years ago, we visited South Africa as a Committee and made exactly those points to its Government. We asked it why they could not put on more pressure and were given all sorts of excuses and reasons in response. Things have since got worse. I understand your point about the UK Government's position but surely the European Union and the United Nations could do more even if South Africa will not?

Tom Porteous: The United Kingdom has tried in the past few years to act on Zimbabwe. On the whole, its engagement has proved counter-productive, because it allows Mugabe to paint the situation as a neo-colonial crisis about land, which is a very emotive issue in Zimbabwe, between the former colonial power and the nationalist Government. Interventions by senior British politicians have sometimes been counter-productive, which is why the UK has quietened down a bit on Zimbabwe. That is probably just as well.

In response to your question about the ICC, I do not know whether the situation in Zimbabwe merits referral to the Security Council. We would have to look at that. It is very likely that action would be blocked by the Security Council, however. South Africa has played a very unhelpful role, with regard not only to Zimbabwe but to the recent Security Council vote on Burma. I must credit the UK Government with bringing that resolution to the fore. It was disappointing that it was vetoed by China and Russia, with the support of the South Africa, which is a new member of the Security Council.

Quite what South Africa thinks it is doing, I am not sure. The anti-apartheid movement-the current leaders-benefited for many years from the support of the human rights organisations. The whole human rights movement throughout the world was defined by its struggle against apartheid, and South Africa is now sticking up for regimes such as those of Mugabe and the junta in Burma. It is quite inexplicable.

Chairman: I am conscious that we shall not continue much longer, because there are questions in the House. May we focus on Iran now? If we have time, we shall deal with some of the other countries in that region.

Q50 Mr. Hamilton: Iran is second only to China in the number of executions that it carries out each year. Death sentences are often carried out in public, and sometimes on children. Do you feel that the focus of the western countries on Iran's nuclear ambitions is clouding the appalling human rights abuses in that country? Would you like to comment on the current situation of human rights in Iran?

Kate Allen: Yes, very much so. While the nuclear issue is being addressed, the human rights issue should also be confronted, not put to one side. You are absolutely right in what you say about the death penalty. Iran executed 177 people last year, including a minor and two child offenders, which is a huge increase on the previous year.

The human rights situation in Iran causes us great concern. It involves a continued rise in censorship, harassment of human rights defenders, people being charged for accessing the internet and the shutting down of newspapers. There is a real climate of censorship. There are also arrests, detention and the use of torture; torture is routine in many prisons. With regard to women, the UN special rapporteur visited Iran in 2005 and criticised the arbitrary arrest, torture and ill-treatment of women. She was very critical of the Iranian Government. There is concern about the nature of the abuses that are taking place. The FCO report is critical of Iran's human rights record. We want to see more action taken at an international level to focus on those issues, not only the nuclear issue.

Tom Porteous: I would just like to paint a slightly more nuanced picture of the situation in Iran. Yes, all that is completely true, yet within certain quite limited confines, there is a democratic process in Iran. We need to be aware of that. In the local elections in December, Ahmadinejad suffered a huge setback.

Also with regard to that, although there has been a marked deterioration in human rights, freedom of expression and so on in Iran since Ahmadinejad took office, in the period before that Iran was led by, or at least the President was, Mohammad Khatami, who was a reformist. I think we should have done a lot more to engage with him and the reformists. There is a process in Iran and we need to engage with it. Our whole policy in the middle east, particularly in Iraq, has empowered the hardliners within Iran and empowered Iran, under the hardliners, within the region. That is a problem.

Q51 Andrew Mackinlay: I think Human Rights Watch has always been soft on Iran, and I think that what you said reiterates what happened last year with Human Rights Watch. Clearly we are agreed about Ahmadinejad, but to give the previous people that kind of credence I find amazing for your organisation, frankly.

Mr. Hamilton: But let me-

Chairman: Let the witness respond to what Mr. Mackinlay has said.

Tom Porteous: I do not think that there was a question.

Q52 Mr. Hamilton: I just want to make a small, final point. Yes, local elections take place and yes, there are genuine elections, but do not forget that every candidate is vetted by the Council of Guardians, an unelected body. We saw the Majlis itself change dramatically when reformist candidates were prevented from standing, because they did not support the revolution enough.

Chairman: As a Committee, we will no doubt have an opportunity to look in greater detail at Iran. Some of us may talk about it this afternoon in the debate.

Tom Porteous: May I just say that, the week before last, I met Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel prize-winner, in Iran. She is under a great deal of pressure within Iran and her organisation has been threatened with closure. She is a very brave and courageous woman. I asked her what Human Rights Watch could do on Iran-what should we be focusing on at the moment? She did not say, "all the terrible things that Ahmadinejad is doing" and things like that. She said that we should be focusing on preventing military strikes against Iran, because the human rights consequences of that would be absolutely appalling.

Q53 Chairman: In the few minutes remaining, may I move us to some other countries? I think that we will contact you in writing about other areas, but may I just ask you about the current human rights situation in Russia? Is the European Union going soft on Russia because it wants to get the new partnership agreement with the Russians later this year and because of some countries' requirements for Russian energy?

Kate Allen: In terms of what is happening in Russia, we had serious concerns about Chechnya, and about harassment of NGOs, and factors making it difficult for them to operate-we have an office in Moscow, but fear that it might become difficult to sustain. We have seen a whole range of abuses, including on women. In terms of Europe-

Chairman: Order. I am very sorry, but I seem to have lost my quorum. I appreciate your time and commitment, but this was always the danger when people have to go to the Chamber. This is always the problem with timing a meeting until 11.30 am. I therefore thank the witnesses for coming and conclude the discussions. We will write to you about three or four other areas. Thank you.

Kate Allen: Thank you.

Tom Porteous: Thank you. I hope we did not scare them away.