Foreign Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence from Amnesty International

Summary of Recommendations

Content and format of the FCO’s report

We again recommend that the index to the report is reinstated.

We recommend that the report should set out and report on change achieved rather than just activities undertaken.

We recommend that the FCO improve reporting and updating on the human rights situation in those countries not specified as “countries of concern” but where there are nonetheless human rights problems.

Relationship between human rights and other FCO priorities: We urge the UK Government to ensure human rights considerations are at the heart of their trade, diplomatic and security deliberations

Cross-departmental working: we recommend that the FCO report clarifies its role in projects under joint-government initiatives, and that it should also report on other projects that may have human rights implications (notably work carried out under the prosperity and security priorities). We further recommend that human rights reporting by other departments (eg DfID, MoD) are covered in their relevant reporting processes.

MENA: We recommend that the UK put human rights at the heart of its engagement in the region and takes a consistent approach to raising human rights issues. The FCO must engage more with civil society, especially women’s organisations. We recommend that the FAC ask the FCO about specific work to support economic, social and cultural rights.

The Government should do everything possible to secure a global Arms Trade Treaty that:

Covers a comprehensive scope of equipment to control.

Regulates all types of international trade, transfers, and transactions.

Create common international standards to incorporate into national arms transfer control systems.

Requires that all states keep records of authorised transfers for at least 20 years and ensures transparency.

Women’s human rights: We recommend that the Government back up its commitment to women’s human rights by demanding the meaningful participation of women at all levels of discussion on conflict including post-conflict planning processes. There should be a properly resourced and sufficiently senior Ministerial position with responsibility for women, peace and security, who should attend the National Security Council and ensure gender perspectives are taken into account in all discussions and mainstreamed across government.

Security and human rights: We recommend that the future inquiry into UK involvement in torture, rendition and secret detention must comply with international human rights standards. The Government must also reconsider the proposals in the Justice and Security Green paper which could prevent victims of human rights violations finding the truth.

The Government’s achievements as Chair-in-office of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, in Terms of support for human rights overseas

We recommend that the FAC ask the Government to clarify the timetable for signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.

Reform of the European Court of Human Rights: We recommend that the previous reforms to the Court which are now taking effect and reducing the courts backlog, are given time to bed down before yet more discussions are commenced on Court reform. Any further discussions on reform of the Court must include civil society and any amendments to the Convention must not curtail the right of individual petition to the Court.

Internet governance, including freedom of expression on the internet:

We recommend that the Government is asked to clarify its role in implementing the Council of Europe Internet Governance Strategy across Europe and how it will implement the Strategy nationally (including with regard to UK companies).

We further recommend that the UK Government also sets out how it will promote the standards under the Strategy globally, including through international forums but particularly in bilateral discussions with third countries (such as China, Vietnam, Azerbaijan and across the Middle East and North Africa) who have or are developing legislation and practice that threatens freedom of expression online.

Amnesty International UK urges the Government to ensure that human rights are put at the core of domestic and international approaches to freedom of expression.

The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights: We recommend that the FAC asks the Government to explain what its objections are to EU accession to the ECHR and urges it to progress these negotiations.

The likely impact of new and updated government strategy and guidance documents published during 2011

We recommend that the FAC ask about the process for consulting with human rights defenders and organisations in country when developing and implementing human rights strategies. How will they ensure that these consultations are effective and take place as a matter of course?

Effective processes for implementation/application: We recommend that the various human rights guidance and strategy documents are properly embedded in country plans, through the inclusion of measurable strategic goals and indicators as well as in the work plan of Ambassadors and High Commissioners who must also receive sufficient and compulsory training on human rights issues.

Private military and security contractors (PMSCs): We urge the Government to ensure that standards are binding through UK legislation and regulation that will enable effective accountability and decision making, including enabling PMSCs to be brought to justice in the UK for crimes committed abroad. The Government should also ensure that PMSCs contracted by the Government (whether from the UK or elsewhere) are subject to adequate legal control and regulatory oversight.

Monitoring and evaluation: We recommend that the FAC ask for more detail about the reporting and scrutiny processes in the Building Overseas Security Strategy and whether they will be similarly applied to other strategies.

Death Penalty strategy: We urge the UK Government to continue to push for immediate moratorium in countries that retain the death penalty, with a view to complete abolition of the death penalty.

The gender gap: We recommend that the UK Government should measure progress on women’s participation by using indicators including the number of women taking part in peace talks, the gender content of peace agreements and the extent to which post-conflict reparations, economic recovery programmes and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration processes benefit women.

We also recommend that the FAC ask the UKG about the Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability (JACS) guidance (a product of BSOS) and how it has addressed concerns that have been raised about the virtual omission of gender in draft versions of JACS.

The Ministerial authorisation gap: We recommend that the FAC seeks assurances that ministers will refrain from authorising activities which risk contributing to human rights violations.

Reliance on assurances: We recommend that the Government end its programme of deportation with assurances.

The forthcoming cross-government strategy on business and human rights

We recommend that the strategy:

Emphasises all three pillars of the UN Framework: Protect, Respect and Remedy.

Focus on preventing adverse impacts of companies by requiring human rights due diligence as set out in the UN Guiding Principles.

Continue to adopt a cross-departmental approach, including agencies such as UKEF, UKTI and CDC.

Map out all departmental interfaces with the business and human rights agenda.

Set up an expert monitoring body (multi-stakeholder) to review progress and to make recommendations on implementation of the strategy.

Adopt a “smart mix” of incentives to be embodied in policy, soft law and hard law.

Assess all proposed policy and legislative measures affecting business at a formative stage, in so far as these might have implications for implementation of the UN Guiding Principles.

Address the need for special measures to hold laggard companies accountable.

Ensure greater commitment, clarity and transparency of UK’s role in promoting higher standards on business and human rights at multilateral level.

We recommend that the Government withdraw its intervention in Kiobel v Shell and that the FAC asks the FCO the reasons behind this intervention.

Amnesty International UK

1. Amnesty International UK is a national section of a global movement of over three million supporters, members and activists. We represent more than 230,000 supporters in the United Kingdom. Collectively, our vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. Our mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of these rights. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion.

Introduction

2. Amnesty International UK welcomes both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the FCO)’s continued commitment to the publication of the Human Rights and Democracy report (the report) and the Foreign Affairs Committee (the FAC)’s inquiry into the FCO’s human rights record. The annual publication of the report and its scrutiny by Parliament presents a key opportunity for a frank and holistic analysis of the FCO’s approach to human rights and their role in foreign policy; the FCO’s own perception of the human rights situation in certain countries; the priority given by the FCO to specific human rights issues; and an assessment of the effectiveness of the FCO’s human rights work.

3. This submission addresses the questions asked by the FAC and does not include all of Amnesty International UK’s observations and recommendations regarding the work of the UK Government on human rights or the FCO’s report. We therefore welcome the opportunity to provide oral evidence before the FAC and would be happy to submit any additional information should the FAC find it of assistance.

1. The Content and format of the FCO’s report on “Human Rights and Democracy”

4. The 2011 report is lengthy and comprehensive and includes more countries of concern than ever before. It is welcome that the report continues to explain the Government’s policy priorities and addresses thematic issues as well as providing a narrative of the human rights situation in particular countries. The format has improved slightly since last year with the use of boxed “case studies” but despite the previous recommendation made by the FAC, the report still does not contain an index or a glossary. If the report is to be a useful reference document an index is essential.

We again recommend that the index to the report is reinstated.

5. We appreciate how difficult it is to measure cause and effect in the process of political change, but as in previous years of reporting to the FAC on the report, our major concern regarding content remains. This is that whilst ample detail is provided on “outputs”, insufficient attention is paid to “outcomes”. Impact in the form of quantifiable change is what is important. In our view, this cannot be measured without setting benchmarks and indicators. Nor can it be sustainable without proper monitoring and evaluation. We appreciate that the FCO is attempting just such an exercise partly by way of publishing the report, and that also much good practice (for example on the death penalty) does exist. Overall, however, without a more disciplined approach, its reporting will be incomplete.

We recommend that the report should set out and report on change achieved rather than just activities undertaken.

6. The willingness of the FCO and the Foreign Secretary to engage with the public through digital means such as its website, Facebook and twitter is an example of governmental good practice. Amnesty International UK welcomes the FCO’s commitment to updating the countries of concern on its website quarterly. This provides the flexibility to add new countries (such as the recent online addition of Ethiopia and Bahrain) and ensures that public reporting on human rights issues is not just an annual tick-box exercise. Online coverage of human rights issues in the FCO’s broader “country profiles” is improving but inconsistent. For example, the FCO country profile on Jordan does not give an assessment of the country’s human rights record, but instead provides links to the relevant Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch web pages. This is disappointing, given that Jordan is at the forefront of government attempts to deport individuals on the basis of assurances against torture.

7. One of the main advantages of the FAC’s annual scrutiny of the FCO’s human rights work is the opportunity to ensure that this work continually improves. In essence we can use this to track change. In this regard, we would like to address some of the recommendations made during last year’s inquiry.

(a) The relationship between human rights and other FCO priorities

8. In his introduction to the report, the Foreign Secretary states that “the promotion and protection of human rights is at the heart of UK foreign policy” and that the Government is “determined to pursue every opportunity to promote human rights and political and economic freedom around the world”. However, the FCO’s stated priorities overall are to protect national security, promote national prosperity and provide services to British citizens overseas. We have long held concerns that these interests, particularly those of national security and national prosperity, are in fact pursued in some cases at the expense of human rights. This conflict is, for example, evident in the Government’s approach to the Middle East and North African (MENA) region. Here we would argue that the priority given to counter-terrorism cooperation over human rights is demonstrated by the pursuance of the policy of “deportations with assurances”. We also believe that the Government’s focus on arms sales to the region both now and in recent years is completely at odds with its stated aim of upholding human rights. Trade policy more generally also seems to be being pursued in parallel to human rights policy, as opposed to in conjunction with it. We will wait to examine what impact the FCO’s “shift in network” towards emerging economies has on their willingness to promote human rights in those countries consistently. The Government asserted in its response to the FAC last year that there was no conflict between its interests and its values. Amnesty International UK continues to disagree.

We urge the UK Government to ensure human rights considerations are at the heart of their trade, diplomatic and security deliberations.

9. Amnesty International UK believes that cross-departmental working is essential for ensuring coherence across the Government’s policies and practices. Whilst we would not call upon the FCO to report on all human rights work undertaken by the Government, we do recommend that there is more clarity in the report (and by the FCO more generally) regarding its human rights work under joint-departmental initiatives (such as the Building Stability Overseas Strategy or the UK’s National Action Plan on women, peace and security). Notably, the report cites several examples of human rights work (particularly within country reports) that is carried out by the Department for International Development (DfID) and it is unclear what role the FCO played in these projects. Furthermore, we have concerns that where several government departments are operating in the same country, they do not share the same strategic approach to human rights and their work is not “joined up”. For example, DfID leads UK Government engagement in Ethiopia but is unable to adequately pursue the human rights agenda in line with FCO strategy, as it is constrained by Ethiopian civil society legislation that effectively prevents human rights work. However, the FCO should nonetheless ensure that DfID projects take into account its human rights goals.

We recommend that the FCO report clarifies its role in projects under joint-departmental initiatives, and that it should also report on other projects that may have human rights implications (notably work carried out under the prosperity and security priorities).

We further recommend that human rights reporting by other departments such as DfID or the Ministry of Defence (MoD) are covered in their relevant accountability processes.

(b) The MENA uprisings

10. Last year, publication of the FCO’s report and the FAC’s human rights inquiry both took place at the height of the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. The significance of those events and their human rights implications and opportunities are keenly demonstrated by the attention given to them in this year’s FCO report and the inquiries already conducted by the FAC in the past year. More FCO and DfID resources are now being invested in the region with the establishment of the Arab Partnership Strategy and Fund.

11. Last year the FAC recommended that the FCO take a more robust and consistent position on human rights violations in the region. Whilst the UK Government has increased its emphasis on human rights in its “values based” response to protests across the region, this still varies significantly between countries. Amnesty International UK remains concerned that the UK does not prioritise human rights issues to the same extent in countries where the UK has significant trade and security interests, such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

12. Whilst British Embassies in the region are engaging with new and transitional governments, more can be done to establish new partnerships with civil society and human rights organisations, in particular women’s civil society, rather than confining contact to government actors and elites. Women’s rights and participation must be central to the FCO’s approach to the region and they must work in partnership and consultation with women’s rights organisations, both in identification of priorities and the development and implementation of the Government’s MENA plan on women, peace and security.

13. The FCO report notes that their support for human rights in the region has included both socio-economic and political human rights concerns. However, there is little evidence provided on the FCO’s work on socio-economic rights such as rights to healthcare and housing, the lack of which were key drivers for the uprisings and act as barriers to women’s equality.

We recommend that the UK put human rights at the heart of its engagement in the region and takes a consistent approach to raising human rights issues. The FCO must engage more with civil society, especially women’s organisations. We recommend that the FAC ask the FCO about specific work to support economic, social and cultural rights.

(c) The Arms Trade Treaty

14. Last year, when examining the UK’s export control system, the FAC acknowledged the impact that poorly regulated arms sales have on human rights. We raised in written and oral evidence the need for UK leadership on the negotiations for an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The past year has seen the completion of the Preparatory Negotiations, and the final negotiating conference for the treaty will take place in July 2012.

15. The UK Government has championed the ATT on the world stage for a number of years and we welcome the Government’s recent commitment to ensuring the ATT will be a human rights centered treaty. The FCO report makes clear that the ATT is a priority for the Government and recognises that there are challenges ahead. It is therefore essential that the Government continues to demonstrate strong leadership, not just support, in the lead up to the July conference. The ATT should be prioritised by the Government in all relevant bilateral and multilateral discussions in order to encourage other states to join the call for an effective treaty. Sufficient resources should be available to support engagement and expertise across all relevant departments (ie the FCO, DfID, the MoD, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and HMRC) to ensure the final ATT is robust and based on the best international practice. It is also imperative that the UK Government is prepared to support additional commitments that do not as yet form part of our own national export control system which have emerged during the negotiation phases to date as key elements for an effective ATT for a number of states. Including, for example, import controls, re-export provisions and enhanced controls on licensed production overseas. The Government should signal that it will provide the necessary resources and capacity to implement any additional regulatory commitments required by the ATT.

16. Most importantly, for the treaty to save lives it must be human rights centered, comprehensive and robust. So now more than ever UK leadership is crucial in pressing for strong human rights protections in the ATT. This means, on human rights, there can be no compromise.

The Government should do everything possible to secure a global ATT that:

Requires that states shall not authorise any transfer of arms where there is a substantial risk that they will used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law or humanitarian law, including gender-based violence, such as rape and other forms of sexual violence or divert an unreasonable level of resources from sustainable development.

Covers a comprehensive scope of equipment to control: All conventional weapons, related articles, and equipment used in military and internal security operations; parts and components, technologies, technical expertise and equipment for making, developing and maintaining those articles.

Regulates all types of international trade, transfers, and transactions, including imports, exports, re-exports, transits, transhipments, commercial sales, state to state transfers, loans and gifts and key support activities to facilitate these transfers including brokering, transport, and finance.

Create common international standards to incorporate into national arms transfer control systems, including the necessary legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure effective implementation and to provide for clear criminal offences for all for activities not authorised in accordance with the treaty.

Requires that all states keep records of authorised transfers for at least 20 years and ensures transparency through annual public reports by states on all transfers and on how they have implemented their obligations under the treaty.

(d) Women’s human rights

17. The FCO report states that gender equality and women’s empowerment is a human rights priority for the FCO. Amnesty International UK welcomes this prioritisation and FCO support for work on women, peace and security but our practical experience is that women’s human rights are still not sufficiently mainstreamed within the FCO or across government. Particularly in conflict-affected states, we are concerned that gender equality and women’s empowerment continue to be seen as secondary to stability and building peace, and as something that can be addressed at a later stage. It is vital that women’s rights are central to the UK Government’s conceptualisation of stability, security and preventing conflict.

18. Afghanistan remains a key foreign policy priority of the UK Government and, as a major international partner and donor, it is able to exert significant diplomatic influence on the Afghan Government and transitional process. Women’s security continues to be extremely fragile in Afghanistan and Amnesty International UK is deeply concerned that the hard fought for gains for women’s rights in Afghanistan will be “traded away” in favour of reconciliation with the Taliban and other insurgent groups. As NATO member states prepare to transfer responsibility for security to the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF), they must ensure that the conduct of ANSF forces—particularly with reference to women—is improved and accountability mechanisms are adequate and accessible. Specifically, female recruitment at all levels of the ANSF should be accelerated and funding should be assigned to provide gender awareness training for the Afghan military and police.

19. The overarching governmental responsibility for Women’s Human Rights has been delegated to Lynne Featherstone MP, the Government’s Ministerial Champion for tackling violence against women and girls. However this role is severely hampered by lack of budget, authority within government, and other governmental responsibilities. We are not clear what the concrete achievements of this role have been. For example, although the report highlights Lynn Featherstone’s attendance at the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan, this was only at a side meeting and she had no official role within the delegation.

We recommend that the Government back up its commitment to women’s human rights by demanding the meaningful participation of women at all levels of discussion on conflict, including post-conflict planning processes. There should be a properly resourced and sufficiently senior Ministerial position with responsibility for women, peace and security, who should attend the National Security Council and ensure gender perspectives are taken into account in all discussions and mainstreamed across government.

(e) Security and human rights

20. The Government has previously recognised that the UK’s approach to national security had resulted in allegations of serious human rights violations. The FCO report recognises the need for human rights considerations to be a key part of national security work. Last year, Amnesty International UK, other NGOs and the former detainees withdrew from the now defunct Detainee Inquiry—set up to look into UK involvement in torture, rendition and secret detention—because its procedures fell short of international standards for investigations into such allegations. The Government has promised to establish a new judge-led inquiry once on-going police investigations have been concluded. We believe that this is an important opportunity to establish an inquiry which is sufficiently thorough and transparent to discharge the UK’s international obligations to investigate the allegations which have been made. We would also like to draw the FAC’s attention to allegations of UK involvement in renditions from Kenya to Uganda in 2010. We believe that proposals in last year’s Justice and Security Green Paper will prevent victims of unlawful treatment and the public from discovering the truth about UK involvement in human rights violations.

We recommend that the future inquiry into UK involvement in torture, rendition and secret detention must comply with international human rights standards. The Government must also reconsider the proposals in the Justice and Security Green paper which could prevent victims of human rights violations finding the truth.

2. The Government’s achievements as Chair-in-office of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, in terms of support for human rights overseas

21. The UK assumed the rotating six-month Chairmanship of the Council of Europe (CoE) in November 2011. The Chairmanship provides an opportunity for each member state to steer the direction of the CoE. However, in practice, very little concrete change can be achieved in six months and processes for most initiatives started long before the UK assumed the Chair.

22. The CoE plays an important role in advancing human rights in its 47 member states through standard setting, technical assistance and ultimately the European Convention and Court of Human Rights. It also has a neighbourhood policy which facilitates and promotes democracy, human rights and co-operation with neighbouring countries.

23. Whilst the UK can be supportive of many of the CoE’s initiatives, it has also acted to undermine processes such as in the drafting of the CoE Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CAHVIO). The FCO’s 2011 report claims that the UK played an “active part” in the negotiation of the instrument, which adds “significantly to international regulation”. However, as Amnesty International UK raised in last year’s FAC human rights inquiry, the UK tabled amendments during the final negotiation stages that—if they had been accepted—could have considerably weakened CAHVIO and were also inconsistent with the approach the Government takes to violence against women domestically. Whilst we welcomed the UK’s announcement on 8 March 2012 to sign CAHVIO, the Government has still not signed or ratified it, nor made any announcements regarding when it intends to do so.

We recommend that the FAC ask the Government to clarify the timetable for signature and ratification of the CoE Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence.

24. The UK set out six priorities for its chairmanship: reform of the European Court of Human Rights; strengthening the rule of law; reform of the Council of Europe system; internet governance, including freedom of expression on the internet; combatting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and streamlining the Council of Europe’s activities in support of local and regional democracy. The clear priority for the Government was reform of the European Court of Human Rights and this was where most of the “diplomatic capital” around the chairmanship was spent. We would like to make a few remarks about those chairmanship priorities which we have followed.

(a) Reform of the European Court of Human Rights

25. Discussions on reform of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) have been on-going for many years but the UK sought to use its chairmanship to achieve consensus (or eliminate) some long-standing proposals, as well as investing significant time and diplomatic capital in pushing forward a number of its own new proposals.

26. Amnesty International UK and other organisations were deeply critical of the two main proposals made by the UK which aimed to amend the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) to incorporate the principles of “subsidiarity” and the “margin of appreciation”: principles developed by the Court which gives primary responsibility for protecting human rights to the state. Although these were expressed as measures intended to reduce the backlog of cases faced by the Court, we believed that these actually sought to address domestic criticisms from the media and some parliamentarians of the perceived interference of the Court in cases from the UK.

27. The UK proposals would have amended the Convention to provide that cases which had been considered by domestic courts, applying the Court’s case law, should be inadmissible before the Court unless the domestic courts had “manifestly erred” in the interpretation of the Convention or the case raised an important issue of interpretation. This plan to remove the ability of the Court to consider cases already considered by domestic courts would be a fundamental change in the right of individual petition to the Court, which is the cornerstone of the Convention system. The proposal would not have made a big difference to the backlog of cases pending before the Court, over half of which come from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania and Poland.

28. The final version of the Brighton Declaration agreed on reforms of the Court that did not weaken the fundamental principle of individual petition to the court. But this was in spite of attempts by the UK to push forward reforms which would make it harder for individuals to have their cases considered. The compromise position was to include the principles of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation in the preamble to the Convention and to make a political statement that cases that had been properly considered at the national level should be considered inadmissible by the Court within the existing admissibility criteria. Although this result is preferable to amending the convention, Amnesty International UK still has grave concerns about the appropriateness of putting political pressure on a judicial body.

29. Whilst Amnesty International UK is critical of the UK’s particular stance on this issue, we welcome the rejection of earlier proposals such as fees for applicants, sanctions in futile cases, compulsory legal representation and an automatic rejection of cases not considered within a certain time-frame. The Brighton Declaration also contains positive reinforcements regarding the need for states to properly implement the Convention in their domestic legal systems, which is the only real way to reduce the Court’s backlog. The UK should continue to support efforts to ensure that states implement the Convention comply with judgements of the Court, and set an example by implementing outstanding judgments against the UK.

We recommend that the previous reforms to the Court which are now taking effect and reducing the courts backlog, are given time to bed down before yet more discussions are commenced on Court reform. Any further discussions on reform of the Court must include civil society and any amendments to the Convention must not curtail the right of individual petition to the Court.

(b) Internet governance, including freedom of expression on the internet

30. Freedom of expression on the internet has been a particular focus for the UK in 2011. Under the UK Chairmanship, in March 2012, all 47 CoE member states adopted the Internet Governance Strategy 2012–15 (the Strategy) to “protect and promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy online”.

31. Amnesty International UK welcomes the priority the Strategy places on human rights, particularly freedom of expression and information as: “an overarching requirement because it acts as a catalyst for the exercise of other rights”. We also welcome the user-centred approach of the Strategy and the commitment to maximise rights and freedoms of internet users as well as the maximisation of the internet’s potential to promote democracy and cultural diversity and the protection and empowering of children and youth.

32. The Strategy includes the need for action on “promoting Council of Europe human rights standards globally and, in this respect, encouraging member states to bear these in mind in their bilateral discussions with third countries, and, where necessary, consider the introduction of suitable export controls to prevent the misuse of technology to undermine those standards”.

33. Credible allegations exist that businesses are supplying telecommunications technology to the authorities in some countries despite convincing reports by human rights organisations that it is being used by those authorities to violate freedom of expression on the internet or to further the commission of other human rights violations. Recent events have revealed instances of companies having sold technology to Colonel Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi’s Libya, Iran, China and other governments which were then used to restrict the use of the internet or to track down Internet users in connection with their involvement in peaceful protests and other activities in violation of their human rights. Amnesty International UK was deeply disturbed by British telecom provider Vodafone’s willingness to help the Mubarak regime by shutting down services and sending pro-government messages in early 2011.

We recommend that the Government is asked to clarify its role in implementing the CoE Internet Governance Strategy across Europe and how it will implement the Strategy nationally (including with regard to UK companies).

We further recommend that the UK Government also sets out how it will promote CoE human rights standards under the Strategy globally, including through international forums, but particularly in bilateral discussions with third countries (such as China, Vietnam, Azerbaijan and across the Middle East and North Africa) who have or are developing legislation and practice that threatens freedom of expression online.

We urge the Government to ensure that human rights are put at the core of domestic and international approaches to freedom of expression.

(c) Combatting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity

34. As part of its Chairmanship, the UK organised a conference on “combating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity across Europe: sharing knowledge and moving forward” in Strasbourg on 27 March 2012, to which they invited Ministers, other state officials and LGBT NGOs. Although Amnesty International UK was not invited to this “closed” event, we understand that the LGBT organisations who attended were satisfied with it. This is the first time that LGBT rights have been given such a high profile in the CoE. The UK has also made substantial financial contributions to the recently created LGBT unit in the Council of Europe (which depends on voluntary contributions only, since some member states oppose the use of the ordinary budget to cover LGBT activities). In general, the UK’s work and leadership on LGBT rights in the CoE and elsewhere is very positive.

(d) The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights

35. Amnesty International UK is disappointed in the role that the UK has played in stalling the negotiations around the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Accession of the EU to the Convention could and should improve protection of fundamental rights for individuals in Europe, by ensuring that individuals can directly challenge the human rights consequences of EU law and the actions of EU institutions. The Government has stated that it is in favour of EU accession but has raised a number of legal and technical issues about the internal rules of the EU.

We recommend that the FAC asks the Government to explain what its objections are to EU accession to the Convention and urges it to progress these negotiations.

3. The likely impact of new and updated government strategy and guidance documents published during 2011

36. The development and publication of new FCO strategies and staff guidance on human rights issues is a welcome initiative as is the transparency shown in publishing these documents and subjecting them to scrutiny (which has not always been the case). Guidance documents on issues such as Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) and torture reporting demonstrate an important acknowledgement that FCO activities and cooperation with other countries in a range of fields, in particular relating to security and counter-terrorism, engage human rights concerns and obligations. The inclusion of human rights in cross-government strategies such as the Building Stability Overseas Strategy (BSOS) is also welcome. Many of these good initiatives come from the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy (HRD) Department but we are concerned that their efforts are not being adopted across other departments. HRD also seem to have had a human rights adviser post cut.

37. The consultation process with experts and NGOs which surrounds the development of human rights strategies is improving but the FCO must make more effort to systematically consult with organisations and individuals who act as human rights defenders in the countries where the strategies and guidance will be implemented. This is particularly the case with the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (NAP) which is explicitly required to include civil society consultation. Our understanding is that consultation with women’s groups in Egypt have been limited and civil society consultations commissioned in Afghanistan were not attended by FCO representatives. In some circumstances human rights defenders have been consulted but with no information or context about what they were being consulted on.

(a) Effective processes for implementation/application

38. The ultimate test of the utility and impact of these guidance and strategy documents is in their application, dissemination, support within the FCO and government, and provision of adequate training for staff, who must be able to identify human rights violations and take the appropriate action. Our experience is that knowledge of human rights guidelines and strategies is often limited to a small number of junior officials who have direct responsibility for human rights or implementing the strategy. Work around the strategies is rarely built into the work plans for other, and often more senior members of staff. For example, we have met senior officials working on Afghanistan who had never heard of the NAP, which contains a specific plan on Afghanistan. To be effective, the strategies must have support from the highest level and FCO staff must have sufficient training to enable them to be able to identify human rights violations.

39. Amnesty International UK’s experience of observing the implementation of a variety of human rights guidance and strategies, for example on the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, is that the effectiveness and consistency of their implementation is often down to the willingness of individual Embassies or High Commissions to prioritise human rights.

40. Many of the guidance documents provide a broad list of human rights violations which staff are required to look out for. But without proper training they will not necessarily be able to identify the range of issues which might amount to inter alia “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment”, an unfair trial or arbitrary detention.

We recommend that the various human rights guidance and strategy documents are properly embedded in country plans, through the inclusion of measurable strategic goals and indicators as well as in the work plan of Ambassadors and High Commissioners who must also receive sufficient and compulsory training on human rights issues.

41. Whilst Amnesty International UK is relatively positive about many of the new strategies, they should not take the place of proper regulatory systems. For example, whilst we welcome the Government’s commitment in the report to develop “standards and the transparent regulation of UK-based private security companies”, we have made clear our strong belief that UK based private military and security companies should be regulated via a legal regulatory framework, including a licensing system and not solely via a non-binding industry led Code of Conduct. It is unclear the extent to which the OSJA will be applied to services provided by non-governmental security companies. As such, a proper regulatory and legal oversight mechanism is necessary to ensure that private military and security companies comply with international human rights standards.

We urge the Government to ensure that standards are binding through UK legislation and regulation that will enable effective accountability and decision making, including enabling private military and security contractors to be brought to justice in the UK for crimes committed abroad. The Government should also ensure that private military and security contractors contracted by the Government (whether from the UK or elsewhere) are subject to adequate legal control and regulatory oversight.

(b) Monitoring and evaluation

42. As with the report, the FCO strategies tend to focus on “activities”, rather than “outcomes”. For example, “activities” under the torture prevention strategy includes training and support for organisations on the ground to prevent torture. We recognise that the specific requirements will have to be worked out on a country-by-country basis but it is hard to evaluate the success or impact of the strategy without more clarity or detail on the specific changes the Government is seeking to achieve within the broad goal of empowering organisations to prevent torture.

43. In BSOS, the Government commits to “ensuring that our investments deliver real results on the ground, are transparent and provide value for money for the UK taxpayer… We will implement a systematic cross-government reporting framework that is consistent across Posts conducting activity supported by the Conflict Pool so that we can measure our impact across regions”. Amnesty International UK welcomes this commitment to transparency and measuring the impact of the strategy.

We recommend that the FAC ask for more detail about the reporting and scrutiny processes in the Building Overseas Security Strategy and whether they will be similarly applied to other strategies.

(c) Evaluation of specific strategies and guidance documents

44. Amnesty International UK has worked with the FCO on the death penalty for many years and the updated death penalty strategy is welcome. It mirrors our goal of global abolition of the death penalty and stance of opposing all executions unconditionally. Usefully, this strategy also has clearly defined priority countries and has enabled the UK Government to make useful and necessary interventions in individual death penalty cases for British Nationals and through the EU for third-country nationals. These interventions should not be limited to countries which are targeted as “priorities”. This strategy has also seen the Government take an active role in the UN General Assembly vote calling for a global moratorium on executions, which in 2010 attracted record support. We hope that the UK Government will continue its work in the run up to the next General Assembly vote on the Death Penalty later this year.

We urge the UK Government to continue to push for immediate moratorium in countries that retain the death penalty, with a view to complete abolition of the death penalty.

(d) The gender gap

45. The UK’s new National Action Plan on women, peace and security (the NAP) is a great improvement on the original 12-point plan and we are pleased the Government has developed a more sophisticated structure for the NAP. Yet we are concerned that fundamental institutional barriers remain and will hinder the implementation and effectiveness of the National Action Plan and implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. These are: lack of understanding of the importance of gender equality and women’s human rights across key government departments tasked with delivering aspects of the NAP notably, the FCO, MoD and DfID; a lack of clear accountability lines as to who is responsible at senior level in government for the NAP as a whole; and a lack of budget to ensure the projects can have both short term and long term impact. To ensure the Plan is successfully implemented there needs to be clearly allocated funding, cross-government co-ordination and leadership.

46. The OSJA guidance, FCO guidance on reporting torture and mistreatment, and the Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers1 rely on FCO staff and intelligence officers to identify human rights violations. The documents set out a list of forms of treatment which could constitute human rights violations. However none adequately addresses human rights violations or forms of torture/mistreatment which are particularly suffered by women. We are particularly concerned that the Consolidated Guidance refers to sexual violence rather than sexual embarrassment because this downplays an abuse that is a clear human rights violation and in some circumstances amounts to torture.

47. Amnesty International UK welcomes BSOS’s recognition that “conflict and violence have a particularly negative impact on women” and the emphasis of the role of women in building stability. We are concerned by the limited gender integration throughout BSOS and the few concrete commitments to women’s participation in building peace. Amnesty International UK believes that BSOS would be strengthened by promoting government coordination through, for example, clear links with the Home Office led cross-government strategy and assigning a National Security Council member explicit responsibility for women, peace and security. We also believe that gender should be mainstreamed throughout BSOS and not limited to sections on UN Security Council Resolution 1325.

48. It is vital that women’s rights are central to the UK Government’s conceptualisation of stability and security.

We recommend that the UK Government should measure progress on women’s participation by using indicators including the number of women taking part in peace talks, the gender content of peace agreements and the extent to which post-conflict reparations, economic recovery programmes and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration processes benefit women.

(e) The Ministerial authorisation gap

49. The OSJA guidance and Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers both cover the situation where the UK has an interest in cooperating with or providing assistance to co-operating with overseas bodies or agencies may result in government or individual officials being complicit in human rights violations. Both documents provide a framework for officials to assess whether their actions might contribute to human rights violations and consult senior colleagues or Ministers as necessary. However, the guidance says little about how the Ministerial discretion or authority to stop or proceed work will be exercised. This guidance document seems to allow for the possibility that Ministers could authorise cooperation or assistance which could contribute or lead to human rights violations. The guidance also does not indicate what personnel should do if they continue to believe, for instance, that action on their part will result in human rights violations, but ministers instruct them to proceed.

We recommend that the FAC seeks assurances that ministers will refrain from authorising activities which risk contributing to human rights violations.

(f) The reliance on assurances

50. The OSJA guidance and Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers also both address the possibility of seeking assurances from the host government or institution or agency with which they are cooperating, that they will comply with relevant standards. Amnesty International UK has previously raised serious concerns about the use of such assurances in relation to torture and ill-treatment and the ability of such bilateral agreements to mitigate a serious risk of mistreatment which would otherwise exist in those countries which routinely sue torture. Based on decades of research and experience about torture and other ill-treatment, we do not consider that promises of humane treatment given by governments that practice torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is reliable. If there is a serious risk that cooperation or assistance from UK officials will result in torture or ill-treatment, this co-operation should be withdrawn.

We recommend that the Government end its programme of deportation with assurances.

4. The forthcoming cross-government strategy on business and human rights

51. Amnesty International UK has previously been critical of the UK’s approach to business and human rights. At the heart of their failings has been a refusal to accept that the human rights impacts of UK companies abroad engages the UK’s international human rights obligations. A direct result of this interpretation of international law is the unwillingness of the UK Government to address the different ways it might be able to use its jurisdiction over parent companies registered in the UK to improve the human rights performance of UK-based multinational corporations when operating abroad. This “light-touch” approach to regulating the human rights impact of business is reflected in the 2011 report which focuses on “promoting responsible business practice” and emphasises the Government’s support for the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. This is an initiative that has shown very modest progress in 12 years: its process has weak governance and accountability structures and there is little evidence of the ability of the Voluntary Principles to address these widely perceived weaknesses. Much more evidence needs to be provided of the effectiveness of the initiatives that the FCO champions to improve standards of conduct of business.

52. The UK’s approach has been challenged by the UN Committee that monitors compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) to which UK is a signatory. The CERD Committee in a Concluding Observation in September 2011 called on the UK “to take appropriate legislative and administrative measures to ensure that acts of transnational corporations registered in the State party comply with the provisions of the convention”.

53. The UK has shown commendable support for the development of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights which were developed by Professor John Ruggie and endorsed by the Human Rights Council in June 2011. Amnesty International UK welcomes the commitment made to the development and implementation of a cross-departmental strategy which is intended to reflect these Guiding Principles. However, this commitment will require the Government to go much further than their previous position. One of the three pillars of the Guiding Principles: the “Duty to Protect” requires States, inter alia, to “enforce laws that are aimed at, or have the effect of, requiring business enterprises to respect human rights, and periodically to assess the adequacy of such laws and address any gaps”.

54. The establishment of a cross-departmental steering group on business and human rights to develop the strategy is a positive step towards gaining traction for the strategy and ensuring greater coherence across the many functions of government that influence business impacts on human rights. Agencies of government such as UK Export Finance (UKEF) and UK Trade and Industry (UKTI) have been drawn into the business and human rights fold for the first time which augurs well for the future, in so far as there is now the prospect of human rights becoming a part of their modus operandi. The Government has shown foresight in adopting a multi-stakeholder approach to developing this strategy, including both business and civil society organisations, which will help draw on wider expertise and bring about a greater consensus than would otherwise be possible.

55. Amnesty International UK has made a number of recommendations for the strategy which will be necessary to ensure that it is effective and fits within the framework set by the UN Guidelines.

We recommend that the strategy should:

Emphasise all three pillars of the UN Framework: Protect, Respect and Remedy.