THE UNITED KINGDOM, TORTURE AND ANTI-TERRORISM: WHERE THE PROBLEMS LIE A report produced by The Redress Trust Registered Charity No. 1015787 December 2008 REDRESS 87 Vauxhall Walk London, SE11 5HJ www.redress.org THE UNITED KINGDOM, TORTURE AND ANTI-TERRORISM: 2 WHERE THE PROBLEMS LIE INDEX I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5 II. THE UK AND ‘EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION’ ........................................................... 8 1. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 8 2. RENDITION, EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION, RENDITION TO JUSTICE .............. 8 3. THE US PROGRAMME ............................................................................................... 10 4. THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TORTURE AND NON-REFOULEMENT ............... 11 5. EVIDENCE OF UK INVOLVEMENT AND THE UK RESPONSE ............................. 13 a) UK police investigation .................................................................................... 14 b) Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) .................................................. 14 c) Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) ................................................................... 16 d) Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) ................................................... 22 e) All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (APPGER) 22 6. DEVELOPMENTS AT THE EUROPEAN UNION LEVEL .......................................... 24 7. DIEGO GARCIA ........................................................................................................... 26 8. THE NEED FOR REFORM .......................................................................................... 28 III. UK VICTIMS OF ‘THE WAR ON TERROR’ ............................................................... 32 1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 32 2. CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION ....................................................... 33 a) UK Nationals ..................................................................................................... 33 b) UK Residents ...................................................................................................... 38 3. ROLE OF SECURITY SERVICES .................................................................................. 41 a) The case of Martin Mubanga ............................................................................ 41 b) The cases of Jamil El Banna and Bisher Al Rawi ............................................ 42 c) The case of Binyam Mohamed Al-Habashi ..................................................... 46 4. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 49 IV. THE UK, DEPORTATIONS & DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES ......................................... 50 1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 50 2. THE DOWNING STREET VIEW ON DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES .......................... 52 3. THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION (SIAC) ............................. 54 4. ALGERIA ...................................................................................................................... 55 a) Case of Y .............................................................................................................. 55 b) Case of BB ........................................................................................................... 56 c) Case of G .............................................................................................................. 57 d) Case of U ............................................................................................................. 58 e) Y, BB and U in the Court of Appeal ................................................................ 59 f) SIAC reconsiders the cases of Y, BB and U ....................................................... 60 5. JORDAN ..................................................................................................................... 61 a) Case of Othman ................................................................................................. 61 b) Case of VV ........................................................................................................... 65 3 THE UNITED KINGDOM, TORTURE AND ANTI-TERRORISM: c) Othman in the Court of Appeal ....................................................................... 66 6. LIBYA .......................................................................................................................... 66 a) Cases of DD and AS ........................................................................................... 67 b) DD and AS Court of Appeal ............................................................................ 69 7. HOUSE OF LORDS APPEALS ................................................................................... 70 8. UK & DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL ................ 70 9. THE UK IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COE) ...................................................... 72 10. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 72 V. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 74 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 75 4 WHERE THE PROBLEMS LIE I. INTRODUCTION REDRESS is an international human rights organisation based in the United Kingdom with a mandate to assist survivors of torture to obtain justice and other forms of reparation for the harm they suffered. We work in the United Kingdom and around the world directly with survivors, their families and communities, and with a range of organisations and other actors that assist torture survivors. We take legal challenges on behalf of survivors, work to ensure that torturers are punished and that survivors and their families obtain remedies for their suffering. We also work with governments and intergovernmental bodies on legal and institutional reform aimed at preventing, prohibiting and redressing torture and advocate for the eradication of the practice of torture in all its forms. With its base in the United Kingdom, REDRESS has closely followed the development of United Kingdom policies and responses to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Many of REDRESS’ clients have some connection to the United Kingdom, either as British nationals tortured whilst working or otherwise travelling abroad or as individuals who have arrived in the UK after having fled torture elsewhere, typically in the country of their nationality. Others still, have suffered torture as a direct or indirect result of the actions of UK officials. The United Kingdom government has been consistent in its stance on torture, which it has unreservedly condemned. This Report seeks to look behind the United Kingdom’s clear condemnation of torture – to the range of its policies and practices that have an impact on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, and asks two main questions: 1. Is the Government’s condemnation of torture at odds with its policies and practices? 2. Is the Government doing enough to meet its international obligations in the fight against torture, and if not, what more must be done? This Report is released on 10 December 2008, the 60th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly’s adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) “as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” As one of the founders of the United Nations, the United Kingdom voted in favour of this historic document, Article 5 of which sets out the unequivocal prohibition against torture: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” Since then the UK has continued in the mainstream of states accepting the total prohibition against torture, most importantly as reflected in the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) which the UK ratified twenty years ago on 8 th December 1988. The UK’s acceptance of these two key instruments, and others, in the period since the end of World War II, shows its commitment to being part of the solution to the world-wide problem of torture, rather than being part of the problem itself. Indeed, the UK has played a leading role in promoting the Optional Protocol to the UNCAT,1 and is one of the first jurisdictions to successfully prosecute an individual for torture committed in the territory of another state. 2 1 The Optional Protocol establishes a system of regular visits to places of detention in States Parties carried out by complementary international and national independent expert bodies. It also establishes a new international expert body, the UN Sub-Committee on Prevention, for this purpose. The UK ratified the Optional Protocol in 2003, becoming the first country in the EU and third country in the world to do so. It came into force on 22 June 2006. 2 Faryadi Zardad Sarwar was prosecuted and convicted in the UK in 2005 for conspiracy to commit torture and hostage taking in Afghanistan in