22. Submission from Medical Foundation
for the Care of Victims of Torture to the JCHR's inquiry into
counter-terrorism policy and human rights
The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims
of Torture (the "Medical Foundation") is a human rights
organisation that works exclusively with survivors of torture
and organised violence, both adults and children. It has received
more than 40,000 referrals since it began in 1985. The Foundation
offers its patients medical and psychological treatment and documentation
of the signs and symptoms of tortureproviding some 700
to 1,000 forensic medical reports each yearas well as a
range of therapeutic services.
The Medical Foundation is concerned about the
UK Government's proposal to rely on diplomatic assurances from
receiving states that returned individuals will not be subjected
to treatment contrary to the standards of Article 3 ECHR. In its
judgment in the case of Chahal v United Kingdom, the European
Court of Human Rights (the "Court") concluded that assurances
obtained in that case from the Indian Government did not provide
the Appellant an adequate guarantee of safety. While, in that
case, the Court did not doubt the good faith of the Indian Government
in providing assurances, and despite the efforts of the National
Human Rights Commission of India and the Indian courts to bring
about reform, the violation of human rights by members of the
country's security forces remained a "recalcitrant and enduring
problem".
A similar conclusion was reached by the United
Nations Committee Against Torture in the case of Agiza v Sweden,
the applicant in that case being removed to Egypt, where he was
abused in detention. Again, the returning state had obtained diplomatic
assurances prior to the applicant's removal that he would not
be subjected to torture or other forms of abuse. The Committee,
noting the "consistent and widespread use of torture against
detainees" and the particular susceptibility of those held
for political or security reasons (such as the applicant) to such
abuse, concluded that the Swedish Government was in breach of
its obligations under article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
in returning the applicant to Egypt, and that this liability was
not displaced by the diplomatic assurances obtained.
The Medical Foundation is concerned about the
ability of those states providing assurances to the UK Government
to protect individuals and to guarantee the conduct of security
personnel at a grassroots level. We therefore fear that such assurances
cannot provide the requisite security to a returning individual.
The Medical Foundation is also concerned about
the negative mental health consequences of returning a torture
survivor to a country solely on the basis of such assurances.
In obtaining express assurances that an individual will not be
mistreated by the agents of the receiving state, the UK Government
is effectively acknowledging the risk of abuse. In such circumstances
it is disingenuous to return an individual, particularly where
return is likely to be highly anxiety-provoking to individuals
who have suffered torture or other severe abuse in the past.
13 October 2005
|