Further memorandum from Rt. Hon Lord Malloch-Brown
KCMG, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
During my oral evidence session on the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office's 2007 Annual Human Rights Report, which
took place on 7 May, I undertook to write to the Committee with
further information about a number of questions.
Question 64, on the question of US interrogation
techniques
We have not conducted an exhaustive analysis
of current US interrogation techniques but we expect all countries
to comply with their international obligations. As the Foreign
Secretary said on 12 February 2008, we consider waterboarding
to be torture.
Questions 70-71, on the question of how many of
the British and dual nationality detainees held in Pakistan were
visited by British officials, other than on the basis of consular
access
We have a duty to respect the privacy of the
individual in discussing consular cases. We cannot discuss any
of the details which would not otherwise be in the public domain.
This includes the disclosure of information which relates to a
small number of individuals where details about an individual
might be deduced, for example when put together with other publicly
available information.
Since 2000, we have been aware of six cases
of British or dual British/Pakistani nationals having been detained
on suspicion of terrorist offences in Pakistan. The British High
Commission in Islamabad established the nationalities of all six
individuals—four dual British/Pakistani nationals and two
mono-British nationals. British officials sought and were granted
access to the two mono-British nationals. Priority was given to
the welfare of the detainees.
Consular access was not sought in each of the
six cases as four of the individuals were dual Pakistani-British
nationals in the country of their other nationality. The Pakistani
authorities are under no obligation to inform us of the detention
of a dual Pakistani-British national nor to allow consular access.
We have also requested, but are yet to be granted, consular access
to one dual national on exceptional grounds in accordance with
our published policy on the death penalty.
Question 83, on whether the Government will be
appealing the (deportation with assurances) cases
The Home Secretary has sought leave direct from
the House of Lords to appeal the Court of Appeal Decision in the
Jordanian case (Abu Qatada). We have yet to hear whether or not
permission will be granted by the House of Lords (the Court of
Appeal refused permission to appeal).
After careful consideration, the Home Secretary
decided not to seek to appeal the other two Libyan cases. Deportation
action in those cases and in a further 10 Libyan cases has been
discontinued.
Question 86, on European countries and Guantanamo
The UK Government believes that Guantanamo Bay
should be closed. The US Government is aware of our position and
we welcome their recent steps to reduce the numbers of those detained
there and to move towards the closure of the detention facility.
These steps have included an increased emphasis on engagement
with third countries over the transfer and resettlement of those
detained. In order to offer practical and concrete support to
US efforts, in August 2007 the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary
requested the release and return from Guantanamo Bay of five individuals
who had previously been lawfully resident in the UK. In reaching
this decision we gave full consideration to the need to maintain
national security. Further to this request three of the individuals
were returned to the UK in December.
The Albanian Government has taken in a number
of former detainees from Guantanamo who have no direct ties to
Albania. In addition, the UK Government has spoken, and will continue
to speak, to allies both within Europe and outside about taking
similar steps to reduce the numbers of those detained at Guantanamo
Bay. I hope the Foreign Affairs Committee will appreciate that
these discussions are sensitive and it would not be appropriate
to name specific countries.
Question 93 on Afghanistan
The FCO Annual Human Rights Report reports the
issue of civilian casualties on page 126. No reference is made
to the number of civilian casualties caused by International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) and international forces due to the lack
of verifiable data of these incidents. Taleban accounts should
not be taken at face value, as they deliberately aim to mislead.
We remain confident that International forces
are doing everything possible to minimise civilian casualties.
Any loss of innocent lives is a tragedy and UK forces, ISAF and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) forces take these incidents very
seriously. The targeting process, weapons selection, doctrine,
training and rules of engagement of the Allied forces are all
in line with international humanitarian and human rights law and
the Law of Armed Conflict. In September 2007 in response to a
letter from Afghanistan's Defence Minister Wardak, ISAF and OEF
introduced new processes and timelines for investigations. During
his speech at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 President
Karzai thanked Commander ISAF for his engagement on this issue.
By contrast, the Taleban take no such measures
when they indiscriminately target civilians with suicide bombs
or improvised explosive devices. They use public buildings, including
schools, hospitals and mosques, in built up civilian areas as
bases and boltholes. And they have not shied away from using civilians—even
children—as human shields.
The UK and ISAF remain alert to the issue and
will continue to do all they can to protect civilians in Afghanistan.
Question 108, on a legal view as to which court
could respond to judicial applications in respect of violations
of international law by both the Israelis and Hamas
In the case of individual criminal liability
by any individuals for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
then national courts may have jurisdiction.
The Rt Hon Lord Malloch-Brown
Minister of State
28 May 2008
| 
