www.paxmundi.info - Weblog

A new report published by Human Rights Watch organisation is entitled Cruel Britannia - British Complicity in the Torture and Ill-treatment of Terror Suspects in Pakistan.

The report details the experiences of five UK citizens of Pakistani origin, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed, Rashid Rauf and a fifth individual who were all tortured by Pakistani security agencies with
the complicity of the UK.

The use of torture is contrary UK government’s counterterrorism strategy, “CONTEST II,” which states that the UK’s response to terrorism will be
based on the rule of law.

In reality, the UK Government has had a policy of outsourcing torture to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, MI5 and MI6 officers have
been sent to Pakistan to interrogate suspects in Pakistan following their torture by the ISI, in some cases the suspects have been detained and tortured by the Pakistani security services at the request of their British counterparts.

The report Cruel Britannia details the cases of five UK citizens of Pakistani
origin-Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed, Rashid Rauf
and a fifth individual who wishes to remain anonymous-tortured in
Pakistan between 2004 and 2007. The men were tortured and ill-treated
by the military-controlled Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, the civilian-controlled Intelligence Bureau (IB), or other Pakistani security agencies. The abuse of these prisoners was part of the systematic use of torture by the Pakistani authorities which has been extensively documented and confirmed by Pakistani and British security and intelligence officials.

The use of torture by the Pakistani security agencies is common knowledge, Pakistani and international human rights groups, lawyers, the media, the US State Department, and the UN have long documented torture, arbitrary
arrests and detention, enforced disappearances, and other human
rights abuses by Pakistani government security forces and intelligence agencies take place with complete impunity.

In Pakistan, torture often follows illegal abductions or “disappearances” by the ISI, other intelligence agencies, the military, or other security
services. These practices are systematic and routine, whether in
ordinary criminal matters to obtain confessions or information,
against political and ideological opponents, or in more sensitive
intelligence and counterterrorism cases.

Human Rights Watch does not state that there is any evidence of UK officials directly participating in torture, but, that UK complicity is clear as it is inconceivable that the UK government was unaware of the systematic
use of torture in Pakistan.

Human Rights Watch alleges that UK officials knew about the use of torture in specific cases.

Four men, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rangzieb Ahmed, and an individual who wishes to remain anonymous, have described meeting British officials while detained in Pakistan. In some cases this happened shortly after sessions in which the individuals had been tortured, when it was
likely that clear and visible signs of torture were present. For example, Rangzieb Ahmed alleges that he was interrogated by British security officials shortly after three fingernails had been pulled out.

UK officials supplied questions and lines of enquiry to Pakistan intelligence sources in cases in which detainees were tortured.

UK officials knew that interrogations of these UK citizens were taking place and that torture was routinely used in interrogations.

The UK was also putting pressure on Pakistani authorities for results. In this environment, passing questions and offering other cooperation in such cases without ensuring that the detainees were treated appropriately was an invitation to abuse.

Members of Pakistani intelligence agencies have stated that British officials knew that Pakistani intelligence agencies routinely tortured detained terror
suspects-what Pakistani officers described to Human Rights Watch as
being”processed”in the “traditional way.”

Pakistani Officials describe being under immense pressure from the UK and the United States to “perform” in the “war on terror,” and have noted “we do what we are asked to do.” Pakistani intelligence sources described Salahuddin Amin, for example, as a “high pressure” case, saying that the British agents involved were “perfectly aware that we were using all means
possible to extract information from him and were grateful that we
were doing so.”

The UK government’s response to the allegations contained in the Human Rights Watch report ‘Cruel Britannia’ has has so far been indecisive, rather than investigating the alleged complicity of its intelligence services or
responded to the specific claims made by Human Rights Watch, instead
the UK government has merely responded with assurances that it does
not use or condone torture.

In response to allegations that British intelligence officers were involved in the torture of terrorism suspects British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
announced in March 2009 that the rules determining how the Security
Service (MI5) and the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) are allowed
to interrogate suspects, including strict guidance banning the use of
torture, would be published.

Gordon Brown also said that he had asked parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee to review any developments and relevant information. “Torture has no place in a modern democratic society. We will not condone it. Nor will we ever ask others to do it on our behalf,” Brown said that
the public document would cover “the standards that we apply
during the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas.”

However, in June 2009, Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the UK government would not be publishing the guidance in force at the time of the arrests documented in Human Rights Watch report stating in justification that doing so could “give succor to our enemies.”

On June 18 The Guardian newspaper reported the existence of “a secret interrogation policy,” providing guidance to MI5 and MI6 officers
interrogating detainees in US military custody in Afghanistan.
British intelligence officers were given written instructions that
they could not “be seen to condone” torture and that they
must not “engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane
or degrading treatment of prisoners.” However, they were advised
that they were under no obligation to intervene to prevent detainees
from being mistreated. “Given that they are not within our
custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to
prevent this.”

The UK government continues to justify using evidence gained from torture from third countries for intelligence and policing purposes, arguing, that where intelligence “bears on threats to life, we cannot reject it out
of hand.”

On August 4, 2009, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) concluded that the UK government was “determined to avoid parliamentary scrutiny” about its knowledge of the torture of terror suspects
held by the intelligence services in Pakistan and elsewhere. The JCHR
report said that an independent inquiry was the only way to restore
public confidence in the intelligence and security agencies.

On August 9, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) also raised its concerns about involvement in the torture and other ill-treatment of terror suspects held abroad. The FAC stated in its report on the FCO Annual Human Rights report that, “[t]here is a risk that use of evidence
which may have been obtained under torture on a regular basis,
especially where it is not clear that protestations about
mistreatment have elicited any change in behaviour by foreign
intelligence services, could be construed as complicity in such
behaviour.”

The UK Government has so far ignored these expressions of concern from parliamentary committees. The foreign and home secretaries refused to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2009 to respond to questions about possible UK complicity in torture in Pakistan and elsewhere.
The UK Government has even refused to respond to a Foreign Affairs
Committee question about whether UK officials met any UK citizens in
detention in Pakistan.

In October 2009, the The foreign and home secretaries rejected the call for an independent inquiry out of hand, claiming that, “the Government unreservedly condemns the use of torture and our clear policy is not to
participate in, solicit, encourage or condone torture.”

The actions of UK officials documented in this Human Rights Watch report violate the UK’s obligations under international law and require that those
responsible be held accountable.

The Convention against Torture prohibits torture and other ill-treatment, and complicity in such acts, by state officials and agents. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is incorporated into British law by the UK Human Rights Act 1998, similarly prohibits torture.

The Convention against Torture requires states to reinforce the prohibition against torture through legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures. States are to ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under its criminal law, including complicity or participation in torture.
International law places an obligation on states to prevent,
investigate, prosecute and punish torture and other ill-treatment.
The obligation to prosecute torture includes those who are complicit
and who directly participate in torture, as well as those responsible
in the chain of command. A state is obligated to take necessary
measures to establish its jurisdiction over acts of torture when the
alleged offender is a national of that state or when the victim is a
national and the state considers it appropriate.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture, which monitors state compliance with the Convention against Torture, has indicated that an individual is complicit in torture if he or she has given “tacit consent”
or “acquiesced” to the torture and knew or should have known that it was taking place. British officials who assisted in the transfer of individuals to Pakistani intelligence agencies, provided questions or in other ways sought to benefit from their interrogation in Pakistani custody, or met with such detainees who showed visible signs of being tortured but did nothing to prevent further mistreatment, would very likely have been complicit in torture.

Section 134 of the UK Criminal Justice Act of 1988 creates a legal obligation in British law to prosecute acts of torture. The law provides that the person
charged needs to be a public official or a person acting in an official capacity “whatever his nationality” and that the offense can be committed “in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

Further, the UK government should establish a code of conduct for
British security services consistent with Britain’s human rights obligations under domestic and international law, including the onvention against Torture and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Human Rights Watch believes that the UK government needs to address a number of outstanding questions regarding its counter-terror policies. Among them:

1. What steps as a matter of policy does the UK government, including all intelligence and security agencies, take to ensure that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are not used in any cases in which it has asked the Pakistani authorities for assistance or
cooperation?

2. What does the UK government do when it learns that torture or ill-treatment has occurred in a particular case?

3. What conditions has the UK government put on continuing cooperation and assistance with Pakistan in counter-terror and law enforcement activities?

4. Has the UK government ever conditioned continuing cooperation or assistance with Pakistan on an end to torture and other ill-treatment?

5. Has the UK government ever withdrawn cooperation in a particular case or cases because of torture or ill-treatment?

6. What is the policy and legal advice in force to ensure that UK officials and agents do not participate or acquiesce in, or are complicit in torture or
ill-treatment?

The security relationship between Pakistan and the UK remains close. Human Rights Watch calls upon the British government and its security services to condition their cooperation with Pakistani law enforcement and
intelligence services on the end of torture, enforced disappearance,
arbitrary arrests, and other illegality. This will not only ensure
compliance with Britain’s domestic and international legal
obligations, it will help Pakistan become a more humane society, a
country that, with an elected government, rules by law and not by
thuggery.

In countries like Pakistan where there is a high likelihood of torture taking place, the UK should take special steps to prevent torture and to avoid
being placed in the legally, morally and politically invidious
position the UK government now finds itself. Furthermore, as the
government itself recognizes, evidence acquired under torture is not
admissible in court, whoever carried it out or wherever it was
committed. Torture undermines the government’s ability to deal with
terrorism through proper legal channels.

The threat of terrorism does not justify participating in or even being the beneficiary of torture. UK counterterrorism strategy is undermined if the UK is complicit or even suspected of being complicit in torture and other
human rights violations. The UK government should hold an independent
public inquiry into the alleged complicity in torture.

Read the full Human Rights Watch report

This entry was posted on Friday, November 27th, 2009 at 1:41 am and is filed under The Dark War on Terror. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.