Human Rights Issues in Eurasia / Правовые Вопросы В Регионах Евразии

Exposing British Complicity In Torture In UK Courts -Uzbekistan Confirms

Posted by Info on 31/07/2010

The Law Lords on thin ice. In seeking to justify its passive receipt — and its active solicitation — of torture-derived information, and its assertion that such material may be used operationally.

Human Rights Watch: France, Germany and the United Kingdom — pillars of the European Union and important allies in the fight against terrorism — demonstrate, through policy statements and practice, a willingness (even eagerness) to cooperate with foreign intelligence services in countries like Uzbekistan and Pakistan — notorious for abusive practices, both in general and against terrorism suspects in particular. They then use foreign torture information for intelligence and policing purposes … and, in some cases … [i]nformation tainted by torture abroad can end up as part of legal proceedings.

Dick Marty, a Swiss senator and a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, led an investigation into secret detention and rendition published two reports in June 2006 and June 2007, in which he concluded that there was “now enough evidence to state that secret detention facilities run by the CIA [existed] in Europe from 2003 to 2005, in particular in Poland and Romania,”.

In February 2010, the UN published a report was prepared by Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture … The report concluded that at least 40 countries, including the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and Italy, were “complicit in the secret detention” of prisoners seized in the “War on Terror.”

Human Rights Watch to state that “[t]he complicity of UK agents in individual cases of abuse sends a damaging message to Pakistan and Uzbekistan that torture is acceptable in the context of interrogating terrorism suspects”…

The problem with the ruling is in the UK Lords’ inability to realize that they had failed to ensure that the use of torture is prevented at all times — lay with the notion that “the passive receipt and use of intelligence from countries with poor records on torture is in any way acceptable”
The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee focused in particular on claims made by Craig Murray, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, who has stated (para. 14) that, when he informed his superiors that


The chief legal advisor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: “assured him that the Convention against Torture did not prohibit the receipt of information obtained under torture.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: