1 Introduction
1. The UK signed the UN Convention Against Torture
(UNCAT) in 1985 and ratified it on 8 December 1988. We scrutinise
the UK's compliance with the international human rights treaties
to which it is a party and published a report on compliance with
UNCAT in May 2006.[1] The
report covered a range of issues and we published a follow up
report in July 2008 dealing with allegations that members of the
UK armed forces had used banned interrogation techniques in Iraq.
The report focused in particular on discrepancies in the evidence
given to the Committee by Adam Ingram MP, then Minister of State
for the Armed Forces, and Lieutenant General R. V. Brims, then
Commander Field Army, and facts which subsequently emerged in
the courts martial of several soldiers in 2007.[2]
2. In this report, we follow up another aspect of
our original report, concerning the obligation on the Government
to refrain from acts of torture and protect against acts of torture
by others, both within and outside the jurisdiction.[3]
This work arose following media reports that members of the security
services had been complicit in the torture or mistreatment of
UK nationals in detention facilities in Pakistan. We held an oral
evidence session on this issue on 3 February with Human Rights
Watch and Ian Cobain, of the Guardian. Mr Cobain subsequently
sent us a memorandum relating to similar allegations involving
Egypt. We also received a helpful memorandum from Guardian News
& Media about some of the legal issues that created difficulties
for Mr Cobain's investigation into allegations of UK complicity
in torture.[4]
3. We were also contacted by Mr Craig Murray, the
former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who stated that, while in
post, he made the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) aware
that intelligence it received from Uzbekistan, via the CIA, had
been obtained using torture. He submitted a FCO internal memorandum
from Sir Michael Wood, then Legal Adviser to the FCO, which argued
that the receipt of intelligence obtained, or possibly obtained,
using torture did not contravene UNCAT.[5]
Mr Murray gave oral evidence on 28 April and we also heard from
Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College
London, a leading expert on international law, on the meaning
of "complicity" in article 4 of UNCAT.
4. We have also kept track of other reports of possible
UK complicity in torture overseas, including the case of Binyam
Mohamed, who was released from Guantanamo Bay in February. We
offered Mr Mohamed the opportunity to give oral evidence but were
told that he was medically unfit to do so.
5. We set out all of the various allegations, without
commenting on them, in chapter 2 of this report. The nub of the
issue is what counts as "complicity" in torture. We
analyse this issue and give our view in chapter 3. We deal with
the Government's response, and the difficulties we have encountered
in scrutinising the Government's policies and actions, in chapter
4. In our final chapter we set out the questions which still remain
to be answered and recommend the form of inquiry which we think
is required to get to the truth.
1 Nineteenth Report, Session 2005-06, The UN Convention
Against Torture (UNCAT), HL Paper 185-I, HC 701-I (hereafter
UNCAT Report). Back
2
Twenty-eighth Report, Session 2007-08, UN Convention Against
Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About
the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq, HL
Paper 127, HC 527. Back
3
UNCAT Report, paragraphs 38-67 in particular. Back
4
p. 50. Back
5
Ev 57. Back
|
