NEWSLETTER Volume 1, Issue 1
Preventing Torture Framing the Issue
May 2007
within the fight against terrorism Inside this issue:
Framing the Issue
Welcome to the inaugural edition of the “Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism” newsletter. Since late 2001, the controversially labelled “War on Terrorism” has dominated public discourse. One major criticism that has arisen is that under the auspices of counter-terrorism, democratic societies have increasingly resorted to torture and ill-treatment of terror suspects as a justification to save innocent lives. In this context, prominent opinion and decision-makers as well as members of the general
public in leading democratic countries have argued that new forms of transnational terrorism necessitate a revision of existing legal and moral norms related to torture and ill-treatment. At the same time, authoritarian rulers around the world have exploited this climate to step up their oppression of political opposition groups. This publication – due out six times a year – attempts to illuminate some of the major issues related to this context. The newsletter is one component of a threeyear project being implemented by the Fédération Internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme (FIDH) in partnership with the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) to help re-establish international respect for the absolute prohibition against torture and ill treatment embedded in international law. This project intends to examine these issues globally by monitoring developments,
interacting with international human rights mechanisms, and by developing a network of journalists involved in human rights reporting. The project also will employ similar activities with a specific local focus in ten countries—Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritania, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, and Syria. We are fortunate to have in this inaugural issue an article by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, Professor Manfred Nowak. Prof. Nowak highlights some of the most dangerous practices that put people at risk of torture, including “extraordinary rendition” and refoulement. Also in this issue, FIDH profiles a recent fact-finding mission to Mauritania that examined torture in the context of counterterrorism measures there. Future editions of this news-
A Growing Threat: Countering Torture while Countering Terrorism
1
Spotlight on Mauritania
3
Recommended Reading
4
For More Information
4
letter will focus on diverse thematic issues related to torture as it occurs under the guise of counter-terrorism efforts, including the role of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture in protecting the rights of detainees, and the “hidden victims” of torture—women and children. We encourage your contributions to future editions (see page 4 for how to write to us). We hope you’ll join us as together we work to bring an end to the dual scourges of torture and terrorism. Brita Sydhoff Secretary-General, IRCT
A Growing Threat: Countering Torture while Countering Terrorism by Professor Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
Since the terrorist attacks on the United States, Bali, Madrid and London, governments throughout the world have cited the need to have more effective measures and policies to counteract the increasingly transnational nature of terrorism in the 21st century. However,
the tactics many countries have adopted in the interests of protecting national security have had negative consequences for human rights, especially on the absolute prohibition against torture. Under the guise of the so-called “war on terrorism”, persons suspected of involvement in terrorist ac-
tivities have been subjected to varying forms of humiliation and coercive interrogation methods that include forced nudity, sleep and food deprivation, submersion in water and mock executions—tactics which clearly violate international conventions and laws. States must be held ac-
countable for their obligation to protect human rights, and violators punished in order to send the message that torture is, and always will be, illegal. The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Volume 1, Issue 1
Page 2
A Growing Threat: Countering Torture while Countering Terrorism (cont.) Punishment—to which 144 states are party—is absolutely explicit regarding the prohibition against torture. Article 2 of the Convention states: No exceptional cir-
cumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. The Article goes on to stress that an order by a superior officer or public authority cannot justify torture. And moreover, international law prohibits informa-
of the world—who may view the shifting policies as justification for their own unlawful behaviour. Perhaps just as alarming is that these counter-terrorism tactics also have led to a shift in the mindset of many citizens to accept torture as a necessary evil. Recent public opinion polls worldwide show an increase in respondents agreeing with the statement that torture is an admissible form of interrogation when dealing with suspected terrorists. The
repercussions of this changing worldview are immense. In many countries, particularly in Western Europe, this has resulted in a new brand of xenophobia emerging whereby refugees or asylum seekers, particularly those from Muslim societies, are labelled potential terrorists before they even arrive on foreign shores.
At their most extreme, global counter-terrorism efforts have resulted in the breaking of the international prohibition against refoulement—that is, the forcible return of refugees and asylum seekers to places where it is known that they may face torture or ill-treatment. In some instances, countries may forcibly expel foreign nationals under the guise of “diplomatic assurances” that they will not be mistreated upon return home, even when “home” represents a country known for systematic torture and other human rights violations. But as recent cases show, such assurances are no guarantee against future torture, and provide a loophole for circumventing international law under the semblance of protecting national security.
Interests of national security also are being used to justify the turning away of legitimate migrants and refugees from countries where they seek work or asylum. Several countries, in the name of fighting terrorism, have established administrative procedures that bypass the safeguards set up by the 1951 Refugee Convention and thereby allow migrants and refugees to be detained in less than humane conditions.
Another major threat we are witnessing is “extraordinary rendition”—the illegal transfer of untried individuals from one country to another without judicial or administrative due process. Individuals subject to such illegal transfers most often are sent to countries with abominable human rights records, or to be held in a network of secret CIA-run prisons, in what can only be described as a mechanism of state-authorised disap-
“The counter-terrorism strategies employed by many countries send the [erroneous] message that international conventions outlawing torture and illtreatment are subject to amendment or interpretation or not applicable in times of insecurity.” —Manfred Nowak tion obtained through torture and coercion as evidence in court proceedings. Yet the counter-terrorism strategies employed by many countries send the opposite message: that international conventions outlawing torture and illtreatment are subject to amendment/interpretation or not applicable in times of insecurity. For example, the Military Commissions Act passed by the U.S. government in 2006 ensures that those labelled foreign enemy combatants are not able to bring their claims of maltreatment and torture to U.S. courts. When strategies like these are practiced by countries previously known for maintaining high standards for human rights, it sets a dangerous example for the rest
Professor Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture
pearances. Such transfers have been practiced by the United States with the complicity of many European countries. Earlier this year, the European Parliament released a report that condemned those European states that turned a blind eye to the so-called “torture flights” and urged for a ban on all suspected flights and compensation for the victims. In an attempt to make the world a safer place, counterterrorism strategies have done the reverse: as international laws are violated, their power to uphold human rights weakens. Likewise, outrage over the treatment of terror suspects does not quell terrorist acts, but fuels conflict further. Governments and their citizens must realise that protecting human rights and preventing torture is essential, not detrimental, to fighting terrorism. The notion that allowing torture and abuse, whether implicitly or explicitly, makes us safer is a fundamental lapse of reason. To remedy the present situation illegal transfer of prisoners must cease immediately, all places of detention must be opened to public scrutiny, and all terror suspects must be provided their inalienable right to fair trials. And in the broader perspective, states that attempt to override the prohibition against torture – be it by redefining what “torture” and ill-treatment entails or by outsourcing torture to third countries – must be held accountable. Freedom from torture is a nonderogable human right—and respecting that right is crucial to ensuring freedom from terrorism.
Volume 1, Issue 1
Page 3
Spotlight on: Mauritania
Reports of unlawful detentions in Mauritania have persisted for several years. In May 2003, the Mauritanian authorities arrested a number of persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. The Mauritanian Human Rights Association/Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme (AMDH), SOS Esclaves and FIDH deemed the arrests arbitrary. The detainees were eventually freed at the request of the Attorney General without any conviction, after being detained for more than three months. In April 2005, Mauritanian security forces arrested at least 20 persons – imams, lawyers and professors. They were initially detained incommunicado without the possibility to receive visits from family, lawyers or doctors. In a press release issued on 25 April 2005 the police justified the arrests by referring to the discovery in the country of what they termed a “terrorist cell”. A few of the detainees reportedly were subsequently released. While hundreds of political prisoners were liberated following a general amnesty granted by the new head of state on 2 September 2005, several persons labelled “Islamists” and jailed under the previous regime currently remain in prison. Fact-finding mission In February 2007 FIDH undertook a fact-finding mission to Mauritania after being alerted by its local member organisation, AMDH, and other human rights NGOs in the country that possible incidences of torture were occurring as part of alleged counter-terrorism measures.
The FIDH mission team, which comprised three representatives from Canada, Algeria and France, found reason to commend the cooperation of the Mauritanian authorities. The team met with several high-level officials, in particular Ely Ould Mohamed Vall, who led the country during the interim period from 2005 until the 2007 elections; Mahfoudh Ould Bettah, Minister of Justice; and Mohamed Ahmed Ould Mohamed Lemine, Minister of Interior and was allowed to visit detention places such as the prison and certain police stations in Nouakchott.
The mission team twice visited the Nouakchott prison, where 24 persons labelled “Islamists” are being detained pending trial. Some were arrested in 2005, others in 2006 and 2007. They stand accused of belonging to groups which aim to carry out terrorist acts. The mission met the persons in question in confidentiality and ascertained that they currently benefit from satisfactory detention conditions. However, the mission team confirmed that the detainees – even those who were arrested after the coup of August 2005 – were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and to acts of torture upon arrest and until they were presented to a judge (during garde à vue or
The mission team ascertained beyond doubt that the so-called “Islamists” were all subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and acts of torture during police custody. police custody). The confirmation resulted from visual examination of the detainees by the mission team, as well as from converging testimonies from the detainees, their lawyers and their families. Consequently FIDH reminded the Mauritanian authorities that torture and inhuman and degrading treatment are
prohibited under any circumstance, including in the framework of counterterrorism. Among other things FIDH highlighted that Article 22 of the Organisa-
tion of African Unity Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism of 1999 (ratified by Mauritania in 2004) specifies that “nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as derogating from the general principles of international law, in particular the principles of international humanitarian law, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”. Moreover, FIDH stressed that in accordance with the UN
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Treatment or
Punishment and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Mauritanian government should adopt legislative, administrative and judicial measures in order to effectively prevent acts of torture on territories under its jurisdiction. It should be noted that whereas the Mauritanian authorities ensured the FIDH mission team that trials of
the 24 detainees would begin before 11 March 2007 (the date of the country’s presidential elections), this did not happen. However, FIDH learned just before the close of deadline of the present newsletter that the first hearing before the criminal court would eventually take place on 21 May 2007. The delay in bringing the suspects before the criminal court raises doubts as to whether the judicial process lives up to fair trial guarantees. FIDH intends to follow that trial closely. The full mission report will be available soon on the FIDH website: www.fidh.org.
Volume 1, Issue 1
Page 4
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) Borgergade 13 · P.O. Box 9049 1022 Copenhagen K DENMARK
For more information… Your contributions encouraged!
Phone: +45 33 76 06 00 Fax: +45 33 76 05 00 Email: irct@irct.org www.irct.org
FIDH 17, passage de la main d’or
The newsletter editors welcome submissions of content for future issues, including comments on articles/ letters to the editor (up to 250 words), suggestions for recommended reading and possible topics for future articles. To submit content or make enquiries, email Brandy Bauer, IRCT Communications Officer, at tortureandterrorNL@irct.org
75011 Paris FRANCE Phone: +33 1 43 55 25 18 Fax: +33 1 43 55 18 80
For more information about the Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism project, please visit the IRCT web site (www.irct.org) or contact:
www.fidh.org
Sune Segal, Head of Communications, IRCT +45 20 34 69 14, sse@irct.org or This newsletter is being published with funding from the European Commission
Isabelle Brachet, Director of Operations, FIDH +33 1 43 55 25 18, ibrachet@fidh.org
Recommended Reading Readers of this newsletter may be interested in the following recent reports which discuss in more depth the topics touched upon in this issue. These resources are not meant to be an exhaustive list.
accessed online at the European Parliament site (http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/) in many languages by clicking on the subject area “Justice and Citizenship” and searching by date (14 February 2007).
Outcomes and recommendations from the FIDH factfinding mission to Mauritania will be published before the summer and will be available online at www.fidh.org.
From Amnesty International the report Egypt—Systematic
The European Parliament’s yearlong examination into the complicity of European states with “extraordinary rendition” flights culminated in the release of a report that details the evidence found and recommendations made. The report can be
abuses in the name of security details the human rights violations occurring in that country under the guise of a 40-year “emergency situation”, including as they relate to domestic and international security. Available at: http://web.amnesty.org/ library/Index/ ENGMDE120012007 From Human Rights Brief, “Reinterpreting Torture: Presidential Signing State-
ments and the Circumvention of U.S. and International Law” by Erin Louise Palmer details how U.S. presidents have attempted to limit the scope of U.S. obligations under international law to prohibit torture and other cruel and degrading treatment. Available at: http:// www.wcl.american.edu/ hrbrief/14/1palmer.pdf?rd=1
The “Stamp of Guantánamo”: The story of seven men betrayed by Russia’s diplomatic assurances to the United States from Human Rights Watch illustrates the dangers of transferring terror suspects back to countries where they are at risk of torture. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/ reports/2007/russia0307/
United States Military Medicine in War on Terror Prisons is a virtual library created by Dr. Steven Miles of the University of Minnesota. The online resource aims encourage discourse on the role of medical professionals (including their activities, ethics and policies) in the treatment of detainees at prison facilities managed by the US Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. The library is available at: http://www1.umn.edu/ humanrts/OathBetrayed/ index.html