Joint Committee On Human Rights

Joint Committee On Human Rights Nineteenth Report

1 Introduction

1. This Report assesses the United Kingdom's compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). The prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is at the heart of human rights protection. It is both a fundamental principle of our domestic common law,[1] and a key provision of the principal human rights treaties which bind the UK, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[2] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).[3] The Convention Against Torture builds on these guarantees of freedom from torture and ill-treatment, reiterating the prohibition on states' involvement in torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, but also specifying a series of positive obligations on states. These include obligations to prevent acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment,[4] to criminalise such acts[5] and to prosecute or extradite where there is evidence that they have been committed,[6] to investigate allegations of torture[7] and to provide appropriate redress for victims of torture,[8] and to train and educate officials in light of the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment.[9] The Convention also sets out specific prohibitions on deportations to face a real risk of torture,[10] and on the admission of evidence obtained by torture.[11]

2. The fundamental principle that everyone must be protected against inhuman or degrading treatment must be a guiding principle of all institutions of Government. Most importantly, at a time when the pressures of countering terrorism may challenge the protection of human rights in the UK and in other countries, the provisions of the Convention against Torture must be rigorously applied so as to afford real protection to individuals. The rights protected by the Convention, and their implementation in national legislation, policy and practice, deserve the close attention of Parliament, the Government and the public.

Background to this Report

3. This inquiry and Report follows on from a programme of work begun by our predecessor Committee in the last Parliament, considering the domestic implementation of each of the UN human rights treaties. In the last Parliament, the Committee considered the protection of rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;[12] the UN International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights;[13] and the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.[14] We continue this programme of work with this Report.

4. Our starting point in this inquiry is the Concluding Observations of the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) on the UK's latest periodic report under the Convention Against Torture, published in December 2004.[15] Under the Convention, reports must be submitted every four years to the UN Committee Against Torture, to provide an explanation of the state's compliance with the rights in the treaty.[16] The report is followed by a public hearing where the state's compliance with the treaty is further explored. CAT then issues its Concluding Observations, which highlight both the positive and the negative aspects of the State's level of compliance, and make recommendations for appropriate changes to law or practice.

The Concluding Observations

5. The 2004 Conclusions and Recommendations of CAT (henceforth "Concluding Observations") raise a series of concerns regarding the compliance of UK law, policy and practice with the Convention. They also note a number of positive developments since the consideration of the previous UK report, including judicial limitations on state immunity for torture, and the UK's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention allowing for inspection of detention facilities. CAT also welcomed the Government's reassurances to the Committee that:

UK military personnel abroad are subject to English criminal law including the prohibition on torture;

evidence would be inadmissible if obtained through torture by or with complicity of British officials.[17]

6. The UN Committee also welcomed the fact that plastic bullets had not been in practice used in Northern Ireland since 2002.[18] Subsequent to the Concluding Observations, Attenuating Energy Projectiles (AEPs), the new form of plastic baton round, have been used on several occasions in response to violent rioting in Northern Ireland. We consider this in Chapter 9 below.

7. The primary issues of concern raised by the UN Committee were:

The admissibility in UK courts of evidence obtained by torture abroad without the involvement of UK officials, contrary to Article 15 CAT;
The availability in UK law of a defence of "lawful authority, justification or excuse" to a charge of torture;
The UK's position that those provisions of UNCAT dependent on jurisdiction did not apply to UK operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
The use of indefinite detention under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001;
The UK's reliance on diplomatic assurances that returned asylum seekers would not face torture, and the lack of safeguards and monitoring that applied to such assurances;
Inadequacies in the investigation of deaths following the use of lethal force;
Deaths in custody and prison conditions;
Bullying, self-harm and suicide in the armed forces;
Excessive use of force in the removal of asylum seekers.

8. A number of the issues relevant to this inquiry have already been considered, or are being considered, by us in the course of other inquiries, and are therefore not dealt with in detail in this Report. As part of our inquiry into counter-terrorism policy and human rights we have given some preliminary consideration to the use of diplomatic assurances,[19] to which further consideration is given in this Report. The Committee in the previous Parliament conducted an extensive inquiry into deaths in custody, which applied the right to life and the right to freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment to deaths in all forms of state custody.[20] We may consider the question of the use of force against asylum seekers during removals as part of a future inquiry into the treatment of asylum seekers, so do not deal with that issue in this Report.[21]

9. Certain recommendations of the UN Committee have now been overtaken by events, and for that reason have not been dealt with in this Report. In particular, the recommendation that alternatives to indefinite detention under Part IV of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 should be reviewed as a matter of urgency is no longer relevant following the judgment of the House of Lords in A v SSHD, and the subsequent repeal of the powers of indefinite detention under Part IV of that Act. In our Twelfth Report of this Session we considered the compatibility with Article 3 ECHR of the operation in practice of the system of control orders introduced under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in place of the Part IV powers of indefinite detention.[22]

10. This Report also covers one issue which was not raised by the UN Committee. Since the review of the UK report by the UN Committee in 2004, allegations that UK airports are being used to facilitate extraordinary renditions of suspects being transported to face torture abroad have generated considerable public concern. Given the potential implications of the allegations made for the protection against torture and compliance with UNCAT, we have also heard evidence on extraordinary renditions as part of this inquiry.

11. Towards the conclusion of our inquiry the Government provided a response to the UN Committee's request for it to provide information in relation to eight of the recommendations contained in the Concluding Observations. We publish that response along with this Report,[23] and comment on it as appropriate.

Progress of this inquiry

12. We received written evidence from a range of organisations and individuals, and we publish this evidence in the Appendices to this Report. We heard oral evidence from Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP, then Minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) with lead responsibility for the Convention, and Baroness Ashton of Upholland, then DCA Minister with responsibility for some of the international aspects of compliance with the Convention; and from representatives of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Redress. We also heard evidence on compliance with UNCAT in Northern Ireland from British Irish Rights Watch (BIRW) and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ); Shaun Woodward MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Sir Hugh Orde, Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and two of his Assistant Chief Constables; and from Keir Starmer QC and Jane Gordon, human rights advisers to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. We heard evidence on the armed forces' compliance with the Convention from Rt Hon Adam Ingram MP, Minister for the Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Brims CBE DSO and Dr Roger Hutton. We held an informal meeting with Manfred Nowak, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. We are grateful to all those who have assisted us in this inquiry. We have also taken into account information we obtained and matters we observed during our visit to Canada in connection with our inquiry into counter-terrorism policy and human rights, during which we discussed a number of the issues covered in this Report.

1 A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 3 WLR 1249 Back

2 Article 3, ECHR Back

3 Article 7, ICCPR restating Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Back

4 Article 2, UNCAT Back

5 Article 4, UNCAT Back

6 Articles 6-9, UNCAT Back

7 Articles 12 and 13, UNCAT Back

8 Article 14, UNCAT Back

9 Article 10, UNCAT Back

10 Article 3, UNCAT Back