Independent, Impartial and Thorough!!

UK: Proposed torture inquiry must be independent, impartial and thorough

24 May 2010 In response to the announcement by the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, confirming that the UK government will hold an inquiry into allegations of UK complicity in torture and other human rights abuses of individuals detained abroad, Amnesty International stresses that to meet its obligations under national and international human rights law the UK Government must ensure that any such inquiry is independent, impartial and thorough. The organisation considers that it is essential that this inquiry remove the cloak of secrecy surrounding the activities of agents of the UK, including intelligence officials, overseas, and ensure that those responsible for human rights violations are held accountable, including bringing those responsible to justice.

Snip

Amnesty International believes that at a minimum this inquiry should seek to answer the following questions:

1. What have been the UK government’s policies and practices in response to violations of human rights such as torture or other ill-treatment, enforced disappearances, renditions and unlawful detentions perpetrated by the USA and other states against people, including UK nationals, held overseas since 11 September 2001?
2. What has been the UK government’s policy and practice in relation to seeking to obtain, receiving, sharing and using information that may have been extracted under torture or otherwise obtained unlawfully, since 11 September 2001?
3. What steps did the UK government take when in 2003 the International Committee of the Red Cross first raised concern about grave human rights abuses at the hands of Coalition Forces in Iraq, including in relation to torture practices at Abu Ghraib? What steps did the UK government taken in relation to subsequent credible allegations of grave human rights abuses in other countries?
4. What were the terms of the agreement/s the UK signed at the request of the US administration in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 purportedly under the principle of collective defence under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty?
5. Were there further bilateral agreements on cooperation in the context of the US-led “war on terror” between the UK and the USA, and if so, what did they entail?
6. What oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure that adequate record-keeping was maintained with respect to counter-terrorism policy and practices?
7. How many times since 11 September 2001, and precisely in what circumstances, have authorizations under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 been issued?
8. What was the guidance regarding the role of the security services in the treatment and interviewing of detainees held overseas prior to 11 September 2001? Has it changed since then? And if so when, how many times, in what respects, and why?
9. What has been the role of military intelligence agencies and agents in all and any of the above
10. What has been the role of lawyers and civil servants in all and any of the above? Continued