HR 122: Letter to the Second Clerk of the Committee from the Head, Parliamentary Relations Team, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

 

Thank you for your letter of 17 December to Martin Scales on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee asking for further information on a number of points raised in our response to their report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's 2007 annual report on human rights.

 

1. In response to Recommendation 3 made by the Committee, the Government set out its priorities for strengthening of the Human Rights Council. The Committee would be grateful for an update on the progress made towards this aim.

 

We continue to support the Human Rights Council, with the aim of ensuring it becomes a progressive, active body willing to look into human rights abuses whenever and wherever they occur.

Our re-election to the Council in 2008 ensures we remain influential on this important body. We continue to support country specific action within the Human Rights Council and will oppose any attempts by other members to block the Council's ability to focus on problem countries. With EU members we initiated a special session on the Democratic Republic of Congo in November. Additionally we actively defend the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Navanethem Pillay, the new High Commissioner. The OHCHR adds considerable depth and breadth to the UN's work on Human Rights, with its lead responsibility for implementing the UN's Human Rights programme, and for supporting the work of the Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts appointed by the Human Rights Council.

We have substantially increased liaison with UK human rights NGOs, having increased formal contact from a single annual meeting to now meeting with them before and after every session of the Human Rights Council - resulting in at least six meetings per year. This is not only a useful opportunity for NGOs to lobby us, but also for us to benefit from their considerable expertise and knowledge and to work together in pursuit of shared goals. We work actively to ensure the success of the UN's new Universal Periodic Review process. The UK was one of the countries examined in the first session of the Review. We are sharing our experience and lessons learned with other countries coming up for review through bilateral and regional meetings. At these meetings, we take the opportunity to encourage countries to approach the Universal Periodic Review in an open, constructive manner - accepting sensible recommendations arising from the review and acting on them, rather than take a defensive stance. We continue to encourage NGO participation in each country's Review process, including offering funding for human rights NGOs from within the country under review to allow them to engage more deeply with the process. We have provided substantial financial and practical support to the Commonwealth Secretariat in helping Commonwealth countries take a constructive approach to the Universal Periodic Review.

We have also made a commitment to give the Human Rights Council, a mid-term update on our progress in implementing recommendations that we accepted from our own Universal Periodic Review and have encouraged other countries to do the same.

 

2. In response to Recommendation 11 made by the Committee on the subject of the interrogation of UK nationals in Pakistan, the Government failed to comment on "whether intelligence or evidence gained by the Pakistani authorities in its interrogation of any of these men led in whole, or in part, to further investigations or charges in the UK". The Committee would be grateful for information on this matter.

 

We are unable to provide details of individual cases. As stated in our earlier response, it is also our long-standing policy not to comment on intelligence-related issues and this includes details of any collaborations with foreign intelligence services. However, all intelligence received from foreign sources is carefully evaluated, particularly where it is clear it has been obtained from individuals in detention. Evidence obtained as a result of any acts of torture would not be admissible in criminal or civil proceedings in the UK.

 

3. In response to Recommendation 13 made by the Committee, the Government discussed its position in relation to Guantánamo Bay. Given the imminent change of US President, the Committee would be grateful to receive an update on the progress made in relation to the status of Guantánamo Bay and its British Residents, as well as an assessment of likely future progress in this area.

 

We welcome President Obama's signing of an executive order to close Guantanamo bay detention facility within one year, and further orders on detainee treatment and detainee disposition. These early moves demonstrate real commitment to address the challenges of violent extremism in a manner consistent with our common values and the rule of law. We recognise that there are numerous practical challenges to realising this goal and will continue to discuss with the US Government how best we can work with them, and our European partners, to see the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility.

 

We continue to press for the release of Mr Mohamed from Guantánamo Bay and return to the UK and remain in active discussion with the US. We are no longer in active negotiations for the return of Shaker Aamer to the UK although we continue to discuss his case and welfare with the US authorities. Our request for his release and return to the UK remains open should the US position change.

 

4. In response to Recommendation 14 made by the Committee, the Government indicated that there is still no Ministerial agreement about a mechanisms for regulating private security firms. The Committee would be grateful for an update on the progress made on this issue.

 

We hope to announce our way forward on this issue in the early part of this year.

 

5. In response to Recommendation 26 made by the Committee in relation to Russia's human rights record, the Government indicated that it would be pursuing this issue via the six monthly EU-Russia Human Rights consultation (October 2008) and annual bilateral human rights dialogue each autumn. Given that both will now have taken place, the Committee would be grateful for an update on the progress made in these discussions.

 

The EU held a human rights dialogue with Russia in October 2008. The UK held bilateral human rights discussions with Russia on 16 January 2009. In the course of these talks, a number of different issues were raised, including equality and minorities, with a focus in the bilateral talks on problems of racist crime, NGOs and restrictions on civil society, freedom of expression, human rights in the context of counter-terrorism, engagement with international human rights institutions, penal reform and the rule of law. Both the UK and the EU expressed concern about individual cases, and asked for follow up information on them. Our approach was shaped after consultation with NGOs both in the UK and in Russia. In our bilateral talks we also raised Russia's human rights obligations in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and continuing concern over the lack of Russian co-operation in the Litvinenko case. The UK is actively looking to secure Russian engagement on a number of human rights issues so as to continue the dialogue on a practical level.

 

6. In response to Recommendation 29 made by the Committee, that the Government should provide diplomatic assistance to NGOs in their efforts to gain access into Sudan, the Government described its efforts in this regard. The Committee would be grateful for an update on this matter.

We continue to press for full humanitarian access for NGOs through our shared seat on the High Level Committee, which oversees the implementation of the Joint Communiqué on the facilitation of humanitarian activities in Darfur. The Committee played a successful part in persuading the Government of Sudan to agree in November 2008 to extend the Darfur Moratorium on Restrictions for another year until 31 January 2010.

We took the opportunity provided by the visit to Sudan in November 2008 of the UN's Emergency Relief Coordinator, Sir John Holmes, to press the Government of Sudan to abide by the terms and spirit of the Joint Communiqué, raising concerns about the situation in South Darfur, where the approach of authorities to NGOs has been particularly heavy handed. We are also supporting NGO requests to receive multiple entry visas for all staff and for the removal of internal travel permits.

In the context of a possible announcement by International Criminal Court (ICC) to seek an arrest warrant for the Sudanese President, we are reminding the Government of Sudan of their responsibility to ensure the safety of humanitarian workers and to sustain humanitarian operations whatever the outcome. We follow up with the Government on all these issues regularly.

5 February 2009