Reprieve and other charities have found that the investigation set up by the government has serious shortcomings
Reprieve announced today that we would not be taking part in the government's inquiry into collusion in torture and rendition by British security services.
Along with a coalition of 10 leading human rights organisations, including Amnesty, Liberty and Human Rights Watch, we've decided that the way the detainee inquiry is set up means that it will simply not be able to get to the bottom of the allegations that our country has been involved in some of the horrific abuses that have been taking place in the name of the "war on terror".
Given the near total lack of media coverage of this issue since it was announced by David Cameron in July last year, this may seem to have come somewhat out of the blue ? or worse still, may look like a mere stunt to grab headlines in the news-free days of August.
But the reality is that this is the culmination of a long year of utterly fruitless negotiation with the detainee inquiry and the government. On numerous occasions, we've met with the inquiry and submitted letters to them and to the prime minister, only to have our proposals stonewalled or, at times, even ignored for weeks on end.
The shortcomings of the inquiry as currently set up fall broadly under three headings: toothlessness, secrecy and a lack of independence.
With regard to the first shortcoming, the inquiry quite simply lacks the power to compel anyone to do anything. It cannot force witnesses to attend or require evidence to be provided. This leaves it entirely at the mercy of politicians, civil servants and intelligence personnel, who can decide whether or not to turn up and what to hand over. Additionally, the inquiry is hopelessly understaffed, which will make it extremely difficult for it even to adequately identify what evidence it needs to see. In short, not only is it unable to force people to provide the evidence it needs to do its work, but it is hamstrung from the start in terms of even being able to determine what that evidence may be.
Second, the inquiry is hampered by a far greater degree of secrecy than seems necessary. We accept that sensitive matters of intelligence and national security will mean that it is simply not possible to have an entirely public process ? however, little or no attempt seems to have been made to even strike a balance. Particularly problematic is the failure to provide any real inclusion in the process for the victims of torture or their lawyers ? as it stands, they would have no way of challenging the accounts provided by the security services, rendering any participation by them effectively meaningless.
Third, the inquiry is almost entirely under the thumb of the very institutions it is meant to be investigating: the British government and its security services. MI5, MI6 and government departments will have the final say on what information they hand over, while Cameron and the head of the civil service, Gus O'Donnell, will decide what information is made public ? this extends even to how much, if any, of the final report is cleared for publication. There is no independent mechanism to determine what should be released, and the inquiry itself has no real powers in this area.
We ? and our fellow human rights NGOs ? attempted to engage constructively with this inquiry for as long as we felt was possible, but the sad fact is that this got us nowhere. An inquiry as inadequate as the one currently established risks a whitewash that will do more harm than good ? not least in terms of restoring public trust and Britain's reputation around the world. We can only hope that the government listens, sees sense, and gives this inquiry the clout it needs to really make a difference.
Nuclear weapons Savings rates Liza Minnelli United Nations Real estate Animals
No comments:
Post a Comment