House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report 2007 Ninth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2008 HC 533 Published on 20 July 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.50 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Mike Gapes (Labour, Ilford South), Chairman Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Mr Fabian Hamilton (Labour, Leeds North East) Rt Hon Mr David Heathcoat-Amory (Conservative, Wells) Mr John Horam (Conservative, Orpington) Mr Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central) Mr Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat, Hereford) Andrew Mackinlay (Labour, Thurrock) Mr Malcolm Moss (Conservative, North East Cambridgeshire) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Mr Greg Pope (Labour, Hyndburn) Mr Ken Purchase (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Ms Gisela Stuart (Labour, Birmingham Edgbaston) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Robin James (Clerk), Ms Gosia McBride (Second Clerk), Mr Imran Shafi (Committee Specialist), Dr Brigid Fowler (Committee Specialist), Miss Elisabeth Partridge (Committee Assistant), Miss Jennifer Kelly (Secretary), Jane Lauder (Secretary), Miss Emma McIntosh (Chief Office Clerk) and Mr Alex Paterson (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6394; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Human Rights Annual Report 2007 1 Contents Report Page Conclusions and recommendations 3 1 Introduction 9 The FCO and Human Rights 9 Key Human Rights Themes 11 2 The International Framework 13 The United Nations 13 The Arms Trade Treaty 14 Cluster Munitions 16 Corporate Social Responsibility 17 International Criminal Law 19 3 Terrorism 21 Rendition 21 The US and Torture 23 UK Officials and Torture 25 Diplomatic Assurances 28 Guantánamo Bay 32 Private Security Companies 33 4 Countries of Concern 36 Afghanistan 36 Burma (Myanmar) 38 China 41 Tibet 43 Colombia 47 Iran 48 Iraq 50 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories 53 North Korea 57 Pakistan 58 Russia 60 Saudi Arabia 61 Somalia/Ethiopia 63 Sudan 66 Syria 67 Zimbabwe 68 Formal Minutes 73 Witnesses 75 2 Optional header List of written evidence 75 Human Rights Annual Report 2007 3 Conclusions and recommendations 1. We conclude that the new allocation of Ministerial responsibilities within the FCO is to be welcomed and that it will allow the Government to pursue its human rights agenda more effectively. We further conclude that the Human Rights Annual Report 2007 is an improvement on its predecessors in its accessibility. (Paragraph 8) 2. We recommend that the Government should ensure that the key issues of women’s rights, children’s rights and the promotion of democracy are given greater prominence in next year’s edition of the FCO report. We further recommend that the report should set out clearly how these three issues have been factored in to the Government’s overall strategy towards individual countries of concern. We also recommend that it should bring out the important role of free trade unions and a free media in the promotion of democracy. (Paragraph 12) 3. We conclude that the Government has demonstrated commendable commitment to the Human Rights Council. We welcome its decision to stand for re-election, and its success in achieving this. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government should set out its priorities for strengthening the work of the Council. (Paragraph 19) 4. We conclude that the Government has played a leading role in building support for an Arms Trade Treaty. We recommend that the Government should continue its efforts with vigour and determination, in particular by aiming to convince sceptical states that the treaty will be most effective if it includes all conventional arms. (Paragraph 23) 5. We conclude that the Government’s eventual support for the prohibition of all current cluster munitions is very welcome. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government should set out its strategy for obtaining the support of the US Government and other non-signatories to a ban on cluster munitions, and the implications of the Convention for future military co-operation with such states. (Paragraph 30) 6. We conclude that the Government has made a good start to its work on corporate social responsibility. (Paragraph 35) 7. We conclude that the progress made by the International Criminal Court is to be welcomed. However, international criminal law will only be effective in preventing human rights abuses if applied in a systematic and consistent way. We recommend that the Government should continue to urge the next President and Congress of the United States to accede to the Rome Statute of the ICC. We further recommend that the Government should seek to extend the ambit of the role of the ICC so that any individual who clearly and deliberately commits gross life-taking and life-threatening violations of human rights can be brought before it. (Paragraph 41) 8. We conclude that the Government has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that flights that enter UK airspace or land at UK airports are not part of the “rendition 4 circuit”, even if they do not have a detainee on board during the time they are in UK territory. We recommend that the Government should immediately raise questions about such flights with the US authorities in order to ascertain the full scale of the rendition problem, and inform the Committee of the replies it receives in its response to this Report. (Paragraph 47) 9. We conclude that the Foreign Secretary’s view that water-boarding is an instrument of torture is to be welcomed. However, given the recent practice of water-boarding by the US, there are serious implications arising from the Foreign Secretary’s stated position. We conclude that, given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future. We also recommend that the Government should immediately carry out an exhaustive analysis of current US interrogation techniques on the basis of such information as is publicly available or which can be supplied by the US. We further recommend that, once its analysis is completed, the Government should inform this Committee and Parliament as to its view on whether there are any other interrogation techniques that may be approved for use by the US Administration which it considers to constitute torture. (Paragraph 53) 10. We conclude that it is extremely important that the veracity of allegations that the Government has “outsourced” interrogation techniques involving the torture of British nationals by Pakistani authorities should be investigated. Irrespective of these allegations, we recommend that the FCO should immediately seek full consular access in all cases where it is aware of mono- or dual-national British citizens being detained by the Pakistani authorities, and in particular by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency. We conclude that it is not acceptable for the Government to use an individual’s dual nationality as an excuse to leave him or her vulnerable to the prospect of possible torture. (Paragraph 62) 11. We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government should explicitly state whether UK officials met any of the four dual nationals to discuss non-consular matters and should also state why non-consular access was granted to one UK national, but not consular access. We also recommend that the Government should further tell us whether it was aware of all six individuals at the time of their detention, and whether intelligence or evidence gained by the Pakistani authorities in its interrogation of any of these men led in whole, or in part, to further investigations or charges in the UK. We further recommend that the Government should describe its collaboration with the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, and its human rights concerns about this organisation, in its response to this Report. (Paragraph 63) 12. We conclude that, in the case of Saadi v. Italy, the Government clearly attempted to water down its anti-torture commitments. We also conclude that it is disturbing and surprising that such arguments were made in the name of the United Kingdom and we believe this gives cause for serious concern. (Paragraph 72) 13. We conclude that the European Union can and must do more to help the United States in bringing about the overdue closure of the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay. We welcome the Government’s representations on behalf of the Human Rights Annual Report 2007 5 five British residents in Guantanamo Bay. Given its decision to intervene in their cases, we recommend that the Government should express particular concern over the prospective trial of Binyam Mohamed under the Military Commissions Act and lobby strongly against any use of the death penalty if he is found guilty.