UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq Twenty–eighth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes, and oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Lords to be printed 15 July 2008 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 15 July 2008 HL Paper 157 HC 527 Published on 27 July 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Douglas Carswell MP (Conservative, Harwich) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & The Earl of Onslow Abingdon) Baroness Stern Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses. The Lords Committee has power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Joint Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the two Houses. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/hrhome.htm. Current Staff The current staff of the Committee are: Mark Egan (Commons Clerk), Rebecca Neal (Lords Clerk), Murray Hunt (Legal Adviser), Angela Patrick and Joanne Sawyer (Committee Specialists), James Clarke (Committee Assistant), Karen Barrett (Committee Secretary) and John Porter (Chief Office Clerk). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Committee Office, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general inquiries is: 020 7219 2467; the Committee’s e-mail address is [email protected] UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq 1 Contents Report Page 1 Discrepancies in evidence given to the Committee 3 Background 3 Evidence of the use of conditioning techniques in Iraq 4 Conclusion 6 2 Other matters 8 Conclusions and recommendations 9 Annex 11 Formal Minutes 15 List of Witnesses 16 List of Written Evidence 17 Written Evidence 19 Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this Parliament 95 UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq 3 1 Discrepancies in evidence given to the Committee Background 1. In June 2004 our predecessor Committee wrote to Adam Ingram MP, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, about claims made in February 2004 in a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that, in certain cases, methods of physical and psychological coercion had been used by British interrogators to obtain confessions and extract information.1 One of the issues we raised concerned the possible use of five ‘conditioning techniques’ – wall standing, hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and drink – in interrogation. The use of these techniques was prohibited by the Government in 1972, following allegations about their use in Northern Ireland. In the case of Ireland v UK in 1978, the European Court on Human Rights found that the combined use of the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment. During court proceedings, in 1977, Sir Samuel Silkin, the then Attorney General, gave an “unqualified undertaking” that “the five techniques will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation”.2 2. Mr Ingram replied to the Committee in the following terms: I can confirm that the directive on interrogation referred to in Para 135 of the Judgment in Ireland v UK prohibiting the use of the five techniques found to constitute degrading treatment (hooding, wall standing, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, and white noise) remains in force. The training given to those Service personnel in appointments which could require them to conduct interrogation of captured enemy personnel takes full account of this directive, of the Geneva Convention and of the Laws of Armed Conflict.3 3. In May 2006 we published a Report on the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).4 Amongst the areas covered in that Report were the applicability of UNCAT to the armed forces and the jurisdiction of UK courts and courts martial over military personnel for actions which may be in breach of prohibitions against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment under UNCAT, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and domestic and international law.5 UNCAT prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, in similar terms to the ECHR.6 1 Nineteenth Report, Session 2004-05, The Work of the Committee in the 2001-2005 Parliament, HL Paper 112, HC 552, (hereafter 19th Report 2004-05), Appendix 3. 2 HC Deb, 2 Mar 1972, from c743; and Ireland v United Kingdom, App. No. 5310/71, [1978] 2 EHRR 25, paragraph 102. 3 19th Report 2004-05, Appendix 3. 4 Nineteenth Report, Session 2005-06, The UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), HL Paper 185, HC 701 (hereafter UNCAT Report). 5 Chapter 4. 6 See Articles 1, 2 and 16. 4 UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq 4. In oral evidence, on 27 March 2006, we asked Lieutenant General R. V. Brims CBE DSO, Commander Field Army, about whether he was satisfied troops were fully aware of the prohibition on the use of the five conditioning techniques. Lieutenant General Brims said: On hooding we have given very clear direction and hooding itself will not take place. It is permissible to blindfold in some other way in certain circumstances but we care not to do that at the moment … I think if you went and asked most troops, “What are the five things that have been banned?”, they would look at you and be unable to communicate to you. If you wrote down these five things, “What is your view on them?”, they would say, “You should not do them”, if you follow the answer.7 In our Report, we drew attention to Mr Ingram’s letter and Lieutenant General Brims’s comments without drawing any conclusions of our own.8 Evidence of the use of conditioning techniques in Iraq 5. In 2007, evidence came to light which appeared to contradict the clear assurances we had received from Lieutenant General Brims that conditioning techniques such as hooding and the use of stress positions were not used by the British army. During the court martial of a number of soldiers from 1 Queen’s Lancashire Regiment alleged to have been responsible for the death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian, in September 2003, it emerged that such techniques had been used to maintain the ‘shock of capture’ in advance of tactical questioning.9 The court heard evidence that the use of the conditioning techniques had been authorised by Brigade headquarters and its legal officer. There was also evidence about advice given by the Attorney General on the applicability of the ECHR in detention facilities in Iraq, which appeared to some to suggest that he had advised that the ECHR did not apply.10 At the end of the proceedings, Judge Advocate McKinnon spoke of “a serious failing in the chain of command all the way up to Brigade and beyond”.11 6. At the conclusion of the court martial – at which only one person, Corporal Payne, was convicted, of inhumane treatment – the head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, accepted that Baha Mousa and others “were subjected to a conditioning process that was unlawful”. He went on to state that the duty of British military personnel to behave in accordance with the law “was forgotten or overlooked in this case”.12 7. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence on 22 May 2007 to raise a number of issues arising from the Payne court martial, including: • the apparent discrepancy between the evidence presented to the Committee that the use of the conditioning techniques had been prohibited and the evidence presented to the court martial, and accepted by the Crown, that the use of hooding and stress 7 Qq 238-39. 8 UNCAT Report, paragraphs 83-85. 9 Transcript of Court Martial proceedings p22 (Major Anthony Royce). 10 Nineteenth Report, Session 2006-07, Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning, HL Paper 157, HC 790, Qq185-240. 11 Daily Telegraph, “Britain’s first war criminal jailed for one year”, 1 May 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/30/npayne130.xml 12 MoD press statement, 30 April 2007. UN Convention Against Torture: Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq 5 positioning was part of the standard operating practice of 1 Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in 2003 and had been sanctioned by Brigade headquarters; • whether any of the conditioning techniques had ever been sanctioned or authorised for use in Iraq, or in any other circumstances, by the Ministry of Defence or by any of the armed forces, to prolong or maintain ‘shock of capture’ prior to interrogation; and • whether the Government intends to take any further steps to revise the training, guidance and procedures for the treatment of detainees and internees.13 8.