UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, March 2005
Since the "war on terror" was declared
by the US government in 2001, the UK authorities have mounted
a sustained attack on human rights, the independence of the judiciary
and the rule of law.
Their immediate response to 11 September 2001
was to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, even though the UK
already had some of the most draconian anti-terrorism laws in
the world. Two new Acts were passed, each containing sweeping
provisions that contravene human rights law and whose enactment
has given rise to serious human rights violations.[49]
Then, after the London bombings in July 2005, additional ill-conceived
and dangerous measures were proposed. Amnesty International considers
that these measures are inconsistent with the UK's obligations
under domestic and international human rights law and that, if
enacted, they would lead to serious human rights violations. [50]
Some of the persons purportedly suspected of
involvement in terrorism detained in the UK under anti-terrorism
laws introduced post 9/11 have been thrown into a Kafkaesque world.
A number of foreign nationals, whom the UK authorities recognized
could not be forcibly removed from the country owing to its international
obligations, were interned for years in harsh conditions on the
basis of secret intelligence the details of which are withheld
from them and which, therefore, they have been unable to refute.
When, in December 2004, the Law Lords ruled
their detention unlawful because it was unjustifiably discriminatory,
the government found new ways of restricting their libertyfirst
by imposing so-called "control orders", introduced in
hastily passed legislation, and then by imprisoning the majority
of them under immigration powers pending deportation on national
security grounds. At no point have any of these persons been found
guilty in a court of law in the UK of an offence in connection
with the purported allegations of involvement in terrorism. Indeed,
the UK authorities have stated before the courts that in respect
of those who were interned there is insufficient evidence to support
a criminal charge. Nonetheless, the UK authorities maintain their
claim that these persons are a "threat to national security".
Many of them, and their families, have suffered serious deterioration
of their mental and physical health. The cumulative effects of
the UK authorities' actions against these people amount to persecution.
Some of the other people who are also currently
detained awaiting deportation on national security grounds have
actually been acquitted at a trial in the UK of the terrorism-related
offences for which they stood accused.
The government's dismissive attitude towards
human rights in the "war on terror" has been witnessed
in other areas too. The authorities have begun attempts which,
if successful, would flout the absolute ban on torture or other
ill-treatment by circumventing it. The authorities have taken
steps to deport people to countries where they are at risk of
torture or other ill-treatment by claiming that they would be
absolved from their obligations not to do so under domestic and
international law by relying on the successful conclusion of memoranda
of understanding with the governments of countries to which the
UK intends to forcibly return these people.
UK agents, particularly intelligence officials,
have been implicated in interrogations of suspects who have been
allegedly tortured abroad by US personnel, and in the unlawful
transfer, a.k.a. "renditions" of people to the custody
of US forces at Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan and Guanta[acute]namo
Bay, Cuba where torture or other ill-treatment have been alleged
to have been used routinely. Following submissions from the UK
government, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled in
August 2004 that "evidence" extracted through torture
or ill-treatment was admissible in court proceedings in the UK
provided that UK agents were neither directly involved or connived
in the torture. This gave torturers abroad the UK's stamp of approval.
An appeal of this judgment is pending.
For more than 40 years, Amnesty International
has monitored steps taken by governments to protect the "security
of the state" all over the world, including in the UK. Amnesty
International's research shows that counter-terrorism policies
and measures have led to laws and practices that stifle dissent
and opposition, and allow state agents to commit human rights
abuses such as unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detention
and unfair trial with impunity. Those affected frequently include
members of the wider population not involved in illegal activity.
Evidence of this in the UK has been increasingly
apparent, with peaceful protesters who have been subjected to
police action under legislative provisions originally introduced
to purportedly counter terrorism. There is also concern that the
frequent linking by the authorities of the "terrorist threat"
with "foreigners" and "Muslim extremists"
is encouraging xenophobia, racism and faith-hate crimes.
It is unclear how any of the measures announced
by the UK government since 7 July would have stopped the London
bombers, who were all British. Many have pointed out that it was
not gaps in the criminal justice system that failed to prevent
the bombings. It was lack of intelligence that the attack was
being planned.
There is a very real danger that a range of
the proposed additional measures will further alienate the very
communities the government needs on its side. If this happens,
there is even less likelihood of good intelligence emerging and
even less chance that the civilian population in the UK will not
suffer further violent attacks.
CREATING A
SHADOW CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM
On 11 September 2001 the ink was barely dry
on the Terrorism Act 2000, a law that introduced a dangerously
vague and broad definition of terrorism, and brought into permanent
statutory form numerous provisions identical or similar to offences
grounded in that definition which had been enshrined in so-called
"temporary" emergency legislation in the UK over the
previous three decades at least.[51]
The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
(ATCSA), rushed through the UK Parliament in barely a month, introduced
indefinite internment of foreign nationalswho could not
be forcibly removed from the UKon the basis of secret intelligence
which may include information obtained through torture abroad.
These provisions, under Part 4 of the Act, were discriminatory,
draconian and unlawfuland a disturbing echo of the internment
laws of the early 1970s that proved so counter-productive in the
context of the conflict in Northern Ireland.
Part 4 of the ATCSA was ruled unlawful by the
Law Lords in late 2004. The government responded with yet more
legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA), which
broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the Law Lords' ruling.
It gives a government minister, not the judiciary, unprecedented
powers to issue "control orders" to restrict the liberty,
movement and activities of people purportedly suspected of involvement
in terrorism, again on the basis of secret "evidence".
The restrictions violate a wide range of human rights, including
the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom
of expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of
movement, the right to a fair trial and the right to liberty.
They have also had a detrimental impact on the human rights of
the families of those subject to those orders.
Amnesty International calls for the repeal of
the PTA. The imposition of such orders is tantamount to a government
minister "charging", "trying" and "sentencing"
a person without any regard to fair trial guarantees that are
standard in criminal cases.
After the London bombings in July 2005, which
happened just a few months after the PTA had been enacted, the
government said that new anti-terrorism measures were needed once
again. On 5 August the Prime Minister announced a 12-point plan,
every element of which signalled further assaults on human rights,
particularly for those identified as Muslims, foreign nationals,
and asylum-seeker.
In October, a new Terrorism Bill was published.
This contains further sweeping and vague provisions that undermine
the rights to freedom of expression and association, the right
to liberty, the prohibition of arbitrary detention, the rights
to the presumption of innocence and fair trial.
One proposal is to introduce a crime that involves
the "glorification of terrorism". Such terms are broad,
vague and subjective. They have no legal clarity and can therefore
be used arbitrarily to restrict human rights, including freedom
of expression.
The Bill also proposes extending from 14 days
to three months the period that people purportedly suspected of
involvement in terrorism can be held without charge in police
custodymore than 20 times the period allowed for holding
people on suspicion of murderthereby, in effect, reintroducing
internment. Two former Law Lords have condemned this proposal.
Lord Steyn called it "exorbitant and unnecessary" and
pointed out that it would be unlawful under the European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).[52]
Lord Lloyd described the proposal as "intolerable".[53]
In another move, the UK authorities are reportedly
consulting on the introduction of a power to close down places
of worship where "extremists" operate, if religious
leaders or the trustees fail to curb "extremism". Amnesty
International considers that if the authorities reasonably suspect
people of an offence they should charge them with a recognizably
criminal offence and try them in fair proceedings. In addition,
the proposed power would be a disproportionate action which would
affect whole communities and may amount to collective punishment,
religious persecution and discriminationall of which are
unlawful. It is also unclear how such power would be effective
given that the so-called "extremists" could simply find
another venue in which to congregate.
Ominously, since 7 July senior government officials,
including the Prime Minister, have made statements that amount
to an attack on the independence of the judiciary. The government
has intimated that if the courts do not heed its expressed policies
to forcibly remove people from the UK, including to countries
where they may risk torture, it will amend the Human Rights Act
1998which enshrined in domestic law most of the human rights
guaranteed under the ECHRto ensure that it gets its way.
Any criminal justice system that adheres to
international human rights law will only allow people to be punished
if they have been promptly charged with a recognizably criminal
offence and tried and convicted in fair and transparent proceedings.
Many of the new measures introduced or proposed by the UK authorities
since September 2001 involve punishment, whether it be deprivation
of liberty, or deportation of people against whom there is insufficient
evidence to support a criminal charge. Such course of action brings
the law and those charged with its enforcement into disrepute;
it is neither fair, nor just, nor lawfuland soon results
in the loss of public confidence.
CREEPING ACCEPTANCE
OF TORTURE
The government's apparent disregard for human
rights law when framing anti-terrorism legislation has been reflected
in its various attempts to undermine the ban on torture or other
ill-treatmenta universally accepted prohibition which guarantees
a fundamental human right.
A principle inherent to the absolute prohibition
of torture or other ill-treatment is that no one should ever be
sent to a country where they would be at risk of torture or ill-treatmentthe
principle known as non-refoulement. Yet the government
has repeatedly tried to find ways to circumvent this principle
in order to deport people it deems are a risk to national security
but against whom it maintains not to have sufficient evidence
to support criminal charges.
In August 2005 the UK concluded a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) with Jordan which forms the basis on which
the UK authorities are taking steps to forcibly return people
to that country. The UK authorities are currently trying to negotiate
further "diplomatic assurances" with other countries
in the Middle East and North Africa.
Such "diplomatic assurances" are not
worth the paper they are written on. By definition, such assurances
are only needed from countries where torture is practised. Why
should anyone trust the word of officials whose governments have
already committed themselvesby ratifying international
treatiesto prohibiting torture. And yet, these countries
routinely resort to torture and deny doing so.
The UK has also been implicated in the US practice
known as "rendition"the illegal and often secret
transfer of alleged terrorist suspects from one country to another
without due process, including to countries where torture is rife.
There is mounting evidence that countries known to practise torture
have been specifically selected to receive certain suspects for
interrogation in an attempt to distance the USA from the abuse.
This is outsourcing torture.
Torture is wrong and illegal wherever it happens
and whoever does it. Any government that exports suspects to be
tortured does not escape responsibility for that torture. The
ban on sending anyone to a country where they may be tortured
is as absolute as the ban on torture itself.
The creeping acceptance of torture abroad by
the UK authorities took a disturbing twist in August 2004 when
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that "evidence"
obtained through torture abroad would not only be admissible in
proceedings in the UK, but could be relied upon. The only caveat
was that UK officials should not have connived or taken part in
the torture.
Amnesty International condemned the ruling and
said that the Court of Appeal had shamefully abdicated its duty
to uphold human rights and the rule of law. The Council of Europe's
Commissioner for Human Rights noted in June 2005, "To use
evidence obtained under torture is to condone an entirely indefensible
practice."[54]
An appeal against the ruling was pending before the Law Lords
at the time of writing.
TREATMENT OF
ALLEGED TERRORIST
SUSPECTS IN
THE UK
Once any government begins to "sacrifice"
human rights in the name of security, it is not long before individuals
pay the price.
Under anti-terrorism legislation introduced
since September 2001, people have been interned for years in harsh
conditions never knowing if they would ever be charged, tried
or released. As a result, they have suffered damage to their physical
and psychological health.
Amnesty International considered that their
conditions of detention amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment. This conclusion was echoed by the UN Committee against
Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
In July 2005, after police shot dead Jean Charles
de Menezes, a Brazilian man on his way to work in London, it emerged
that a "shoot to kill" policy had been authorized for
police confronting anyone they believed was about to detonate
a bomb. There were crucial delays in initiating an independent
inquiry into the killing, and allegations have emerged of an early
attempt at a cover-up by the police.
There is no provision in international law for
"shoot to kill" policies. All law enforcement agencies
should be guided at all times by the principles of necessity and
proportionality when using force. Every effort must be made to
apprehend rather than killlethal force must never be used
as an alternative to apprehension. Amnesty International has called
for a prompt, thorough, independent, impartial and effective investigation
into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes and for anyone suspected
of unlawful conduct to be brought to justice in fair proceedings.
UNDERMINING HUMAN
RIGHTS ABROAD
The UK government has also tried to circumvent
its obligations under international and domestic human rights
law in relation to the actions of its officials and troops abroad.
Its record in relation to the human rights scandal
of the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been shameful.
For two years government ministers claimed no knowledge of the
appalling abuses being suffered there. Only after intense pressure
was exerted by human rights organizations and relatives of Guantanamo
detainees did the government finally act to seek the release of
the UK nationals. However, it has continued to fail to make adequate
representations on behalf of UK residents who are still languishing
there in orange jumpsuits. It has also failed miserably in its
duty to mount a serious protest against the litany of human rights
abuses being suffered by the hundreds of men who remain in Guantanamo
without any hope of justice.
Moreover, UK intelligence officers took advantage
of the legal limbo and the coercive detention conditions at Guantanamo
Bayand reportedly at other locations, including Bagram
Airbase in Afghanistan, to conduct interrogations. Such interrogations
took place without any of the normal safeguards, such as having
a lawyer present, thereby circumventing both domestic and international
human rights law. UK officials have also taken part in, witnessed
or effectively condoned the interrogation under duress of UK detainees
in the custody of the USA and other countries.
As described above, information obtained by
such illegal methods has been ruled admissible in the UK and,
it is feared, may have formed part of the secret "evidence"
used by the government to justify the incarceration of people
suspected of involvement in terrorism.
In November 2004, the UN Committee against Torture
recommended that the UK government "should ensure that the
conduct of its officials, including those attending interrogations
at any overseas facility, is strictly in conformity with the requirements
of the Convention [against Torture] and that any breaches of the
Convention that it becomes aware of should be investigated promptly
and impartially, and if necessary the State party should file
criminal proceedings in an appropriate jurisdiction".
An approach that undermines human rights law
and standards has also been apparent in relation to UK troops
in Iraq. In response to well-substantiated allegations that during
the period of occupation, UK troops had committed serious human
rights violations in Iraq, including unlawful killing and torture
or other ill-treatment, the UK authorities asserted that human
rights law did not bind its armed forces in Iraq.
Amnesty International considers that the UK
is bound by its international obligations insofar its armed forces
and other agents exercise effective control over place or people.
These obligations include, among others, relevant provisions of
ECHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the Convention against Torture.
These obligations are therefore directly applicable
to the conduct of UK troops in Iraq. In light of this, the UK
is obliged to ensure the initiation of prompt, competent, thorough,
independent, impartial and effective investigations into alleged
human rights abuses by UK forces.
The UK is also in breach of international and
domestic human rights law through the role it is playing in the
internment without charge or trial of at least 10,000 people in
Iraq. UK officials sit, along with US and Iraqi officials, on
the Joint Detention Review Board, which reviews the cases of all
those interned by members of the Multinational Force in Iraq (in
most cases, by US troops). UK troops are themselves holding around
10 "security internees" in Iraq without charge or trial,
including at least one person who holds both UK and Iraqi citizenship.
STIRRING UP
RACISM
The UK government has done little in practice
to allay fears among the country's three million Muslims, as well
as human rights activists and many others, that the "war
on terror" is anti-Muslim and anti-foreigner, and that racial
tensions will be exacerbated as a result.
The ATCSA was blatantly discriminatory against
foreigners and was eventually ruled to be unlawful on this basis.
Government policies and speeches have persistently linked Muslims,
asylum-seekers and foreigners with "the terrorism threat".
The Minister for Counter Terrorism, Hazel Blears, even warned
that Muslims must face up to the reality that the police would
target them in "stop and search" operations because
of the threat from an extreme form of Islam.
The impact of such speeches and policies is
felt on the streets by people from Muslim and other ethnic minority
communities. Between September 2001 and July 2004 there reportedly
was a 302 per cent increase in the number of people of Asian origin
being stopped and searched by police.[55]
Since 2001, and particularly since 7 July 2005, a significant
rise in the number of racist and faith-based attacks against individuals,
homes and places of worship has been reported.
In his June 2005 report on the UK, the Commissioner
for Human Rights of the Council of Europe said his discussions
with representatives of the Muslim community revealed concerns
over the growing Islamaphobia. "Recent legislative changes
relating to the prevention of terrorism had, they claimed, not
only resulted in the discriminatory treatment of individual Muslims
but also contributed to raising anti-Islamic sentiments."
HUMAN RIGHTS
AND SECURITY
The Council of Europe's Commissioner also stated
that the UK had shown a tendency to "consider human rights
as excessively restricting the effective administration of justice
and the protection of the public interest." He added that
"it is perhaps worth emphasizing that human rights are not
a pick and mix assortment of luxury entitlements" and that
"their violation affects not just the individual concerned,
but society as a whole; we exclude one person from their enjoyment
at the risk of excluding all of us."[56]
His words have been recently echoed by others in the Council of
Europe, including those of its Secretary General and the President
of its Parliamentary Assembly.
The global impact of the UK's approach to human
rights and the "war on terror" is immense. The UK is
a key member of many influential organizationsthe UN Security
Council (as one of five permanent members), the EU (currently
as President), the G8, the Council of Europe and the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It has been the main
ally of the USA in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has stood
by its partner notwithstanding widespread evidence of gross human
rights abuses, including allegations of war crimes, by US forces.
It has also joined forces with the USA in framing the debate about
human rights and international security.
An example of its influence has been its role
in promoting the criminalization of "incitement to terrorism"
throughout the world, including through tabling the recently adopted
Security Council resolution on "incitement to commit a terrorist
act or acts" and its support for the recently adopted Council
of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. A pattern
has emerged whereby the UK announces tough counter-terrorism measures
that run counter to human rights standards, which other countries
then say they need. The UK in turn uses such statements to support
its initial proposals.
However, security and human rights are not alternatives;
they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is the route to
security, not an obstacle to it. The route to security is through
respect for human rights, not violations. As the UN Secretary-General
has stressed: "While we certainly need vigilance to prevent
acts of terrorism . . . it will be self-defeating if we sacrifice
other key prioritiessuch as human rightsin the process".
Amnesty International's message is simple. The
UK government must respond to attacks on human rights by defending,
respecting and protecting human rights. Any other course of action
is wrong, unlawful and counter-productive. Amnesty International
adds its voice to others who have underscored that bad laws make
everyone less safe.
14 October 2005
49 See, inter alia, United Kingdom: Briefing
on the Terrorism Bill, AI Index: EUR 45/43/00, published in
April 2000; United Kingdom-Summary of concerns raised with
the Human Rights Committee, AI Index: EUR 45/024/2001, published
in November 2001; "Amnesty International's Memorandum
to the UK Government on Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and
Security Act 2001", AI Index: EUR 45/017/2002; and United
Kingdom-Rights Denied: the UK's Response to 11 September 2001,
AI Index: EUR 45/016/2002, both published in September 2002; United
Kingdom-Justice perverted under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and
Security Act 2001; published in 11 December 2003, AI Index:
EUR 45/029/2003; and UK: Reaction to the UK Prime Minister's
statement of 5 August 2005 concerning a "comprehensive framework
for action in dealing with the terrorist threat in Britain",
AI Index: EUR 45/031/2005, published on 11 August 2005. Back
50
See United Kingdom-Amnesty International's briefing on the
draft Terrorism Bill 2005, AI Index: EUR 45/038/2005, published
in October 2005. Amnesty International has already sent this briefing
to the members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Back
51
These provisions were enshrined in the Emergency Provisions
Act, which was first introduced in 1973 and the Prevention of
Terrorism Act, which was first introduced in 1974. Back
52
"Former law lord attacks PM's record on human rights",
The Independent, 11 October 2005. Back
53
Panorama, BBC, 9 October 2005. Back
54
Report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights,
on his visit to the United Kingdom, 4-12 November 2004, CommDH(2005)6,
8 June 2005, p. 12.