July, 09 2009, 09:24am EDT
UK: Investigate Complicity in Torture in Pakistan
Officials Privately Confirm UK Role in Torture of Terror Suspects
LONDON
The UK government should order an independent judicial inquiry into mounting evidence that its security services and law enforcement agencies were complicit in the torture of terrorism suspects in Pakistan, Human Rights Watch said today.
Officials in both the Pakistani and UK governments have privately confirmed to Human Rights Watch that British officials were aware of specific cases of mistreatment, knew that Pakistani intelligence agencies routinely used torture on detained terror suspects and others, and failed to intervene to prevent torture in cases involving British citizens and in cases in which it had an investigative interest.
"The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister Tony Blair and others have repeatedly said that the UK opposes torture. They repeatedly deny allegations that the UK has encouraged torture by Pakistan's intelligence agencies," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "But saying this over and over again doesn't make it true. There is now sufficient evidence in the public domain to warrant a judicial inquiry."
Extensive research by Human Rights Watch in recent years has established that UK law enforcement and intelligence agents worked routinely on counter-terror cases with Pakistan's notorious military-controlled Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, the civilian-controlled Intelligence Bureau (IB) and other Pakistani security agencies. British officials and agents were well aware that these Pakistani agencies routinely resorted to illegal detentions and torture to extract confessions and to punish and intimidate terrorism suspects and others. These practices have been extensively documented by Human Rights Watch, Pakistani human rights groups, lawyers and media, the US State Department, and the United Nations.
Human Rights Watch presented information on cases of British citizens tortured and mistreated in Pakistani custody to the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights on February 3, 2009. This week the Guardian published detailed and credible allegations of UK complicity in torture in Pakistan.
In off-the-record conversations, knowledgeable civilian and military officials of the government of Pakistan have on numerous occasions told Human Rights Watch that British officials were aware of the mistreatment of several high-profile terrorism suspects, including Britons Rangzieb Ahmed, Salahuddin Amin, Zeeshan Siddiqui, Rashid Rauf and others. Pakistani officials told Human Rights Watch that they were under immense pressure from the UK and the US to "perform" in the "war on terror" and "we do what we are asked to do."
A well placed official within the UK government told Human Rights Watch that allegations of UK complicity made by Human Rights Watch in testimony to the UK Parliament's Joint Human Rights Committee in February 2009 were accurate. The official encouraged Human Rights Watch to continue its research into the subject. Another Whitehall source told Human Rights Watch that its research was "spot on."
According to these UK officials, as a result of cooperation on specific cases, the Pakistani intelligence services shared information from abusive interrogations with British officials, which was used in prosecutions in UK courts and other investigations. UK law enforcement and intelligence officials passed questions to Pakistani officials for use in interrogation sessions in individual cases knowing that these Pakistani officials were using torture.
UK citizen Rangzieb Ahmed, from Greater Manchester, England, was arrested in the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan on August 20, 2006 because of his alleged links with the al Qaeda network. On September 7, 2007 he was transferred to the United Kingdom-information that Human Rights Watch conveyed to the international media. While still imprisoned in Pakistan, Ahmed alleged that he was repeatedly tortured, beaten, sleep-deprived and mistreated by Pakistani security agencies. Rangzieb's torture included having three of his fingernails pulled out. Human Rights Watch spoke to members of Pakistan's law enforcement agencies involved in processing him at various stages of his detention. These sources, from both civilian and military Pakistani agencies, confirmed the "overall authenticity" of his claims, including the claim that British intelligence services were aware of his detention and treatment at "all times."
Zeeshan Siddiqui from Hounslow, London, was arrested in Pakistan on May 15, 2005 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. He was deported to the United Kingdom on January 8, 2005. Speaking on condition of anonymity, Pakistani security officials privately confirmed to Human Rights Watch that Siddiqui was arrested on the basis of a tip-off from the British intelligence services and at their request.
During his detention, Siddiqui reported being repeatedly beaten, chained, injected with drugs and threatened with sexual abuse and further torture. The Pakistani sources added that British intelligence agents were aware at all times that Siddiqui was being "processed" in the "traditional way" and the British were "effectively interrogating" Siddiqui even as Pakistan's Intelligence Bureau "processed" him. "Because no one could prove or get him to admit anything useful, that is probably why the green light was given to bring him into the [legal] system," the source said.
Salahuddin Amin, of Edgware, was convicted in April 2007 in the "Crevice" trial for plotting attacks against several potential targets, including London's Ministry of Sound nightclub. Amin states that he gave himself up voluntarily to Pakistani authorities after assurances were given to his family that he would not be mistreated, but was then tortured repeatedly through 2004 and forced into false confessions. During his illegal detention, Amin alleges that he was met by British intelligence officials on almost a dozen occasions. Amin was released by Pakistani authorities after a 10-month illegal detention, then arrested upon arrival at Heathrow in 2005.
Pakistani intelligence sources maintain that Amin's account of his detention and meetings with British and American intelligence personnel are "essentially accurate." These sources told Human Rights Watch that Amin's was a "high pressure" case and the British and American desire for information from him was "insatiable." The sources added that the British and American agents who were "party" to Amin's detention were "perfectly aware that we were using all means possible to extract information from him and were grateful that we were doing so."
"Little is left to the imagination when accounts from victims, insiders in Pakistan and Britain, and medical and circumstantial evidence all point to UK knowledge and at least passive encouragement of torture in Pakistan," said Adams. "Knowing that torture would be used by others to obtain information and then saying that 'We had nothing to do with it,' is not the behavior of a government unequivocally committed to ending torture."
In its February 2009 submission to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch posed a number of questions that are relevant but remain unanswered:
- What steps, as a matter of policy, does the UK government take to ensure that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not used in any cases in which it has asked the Pakistani authorities for assistance or cooperation?
- What does the UK government do when it learns that such treatment has occurred in a particular case?
- What conditions has the UK government put on continuing cooperation and assistance with Pakistan in counter-terror and law enforcement activities?
- Has the UK government ever conditioned continuing cooperation or assistance with Pakistan on an end to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment?
- Has the UK government ever withdrawn cooperation in a particular case or cases because of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment?
In addition to answering these questions, Human Rights Watch called on the UK government to:
- Hold an independent judicial inquiry into all cases in which there are allegations of British government complicity, participation, or knowledge of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees. The aims of such an inquiry should be to establish:
- whether British intelligence, security or law enforcement services have been complicit in torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, arbitrary detentions, or enforced disappearances;
- what role, if any, UK government policy has played in such abuse, and
- a code of conduct that is consistent with UK and international law and human rights standards.Publicly repudiate reliance on intelligence obtained under torture in third countries.
- Publish its current and previous guidance to its intelligence agencies and agents on torture and how to work with abusive intelligence agencies that are known to practice torture.
- In individual cases where the UK has an interest, condition UK counter-terrorism assistance and cooperation with Pakistan on the end of the use of torture, disappearances, arbitrary arrests, and other illegal methods in such cases. This will not only ensure compliance with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations, it will help countless Pakistanis who suffer from torture at the hands of the Pakistani authorities. It will also enable prosecutions of individuals responsible for acts of terror or other crimes to be prosecuted in UK courts without the risk of having evidence excluded or entire cases collapsing.
- Make the end of torture a high priority in the UK's relations with Pakistan. The UK government should press in public and private for an end to torture. The UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office should include a candid and unvarnished description of the problem in its annual human rights report.
- Table a bill in parliament to repeal or amend any legal provisions, such as those in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and in the Intelligence Act 1994, that appear to provide legal immunity for serious human rights abuses carried out by British security or intelligence personnel. At the very least, the Intelligence Act should be amended to rule out acts of or complicity in grave crimes such as murder, torture, and disappearances.
"Repeating the mantra that Britain does not torture or condone torture is no longer a credible response to the many specific allegations of UK complicity in torture in Pakistan," said Adams. "It is time for the British government to end its policy of general denials and to respond to the many specific allegations about its involvement in these case. It should set up an independent inquiry to investigate what happened and put in place measures to ensure that this never happens again. Britain's reputation as a rights-respecting nation is at stake."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Dodges Growing Calls for Probe of Mass Graves at Gaza Hospitals
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," said one legal expert.
Apr 24, 2024
While continuing to give Israel billions of dollars in support to wage war on the Gaza Strip, the Biden administration this week has declined to join the growing global demands for an international probe into mass graves discovered at hospitals in the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Two journalists on Tuesday questioned Vedant Patel, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, about the administration's response to the hundreds of bodies found at Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital and Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis as well as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk's call for an independent investigation.
"Would you support such an independent investigation?" Said Arikat asked during a press briefing. Patel responded, "Right now, Said, we are asking for more information... That is squarely where we are leaving the conversation."
Patel added that "I don't have any details to match, confirm, or offer as it relates to that. We're aware of those reports, and we have asked the government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that's where I'm at."
When Said asked a follow-up about potential U.S. support for a probe, Patel reiterated that the administration is awaiting information from the Israeli government.
Later, Niall Stanage asked Patel to explain U.S. "resistance" to supporting a probe, the spokesperson insisted that "it's not about resistance to this particular situation, it is me not wanting to speak in detail about something which Said posed as a hypothetical question when, from the United States' perspective, I don't have any additional information on this aside from the public reporting."
After Patel again stressed that the administration has asked Israel for more information, Stanage inquired, "And do you believe the government of Israel is a credible source in enlightening you?"
The spokesperson interrupted Stanage to say, "We do."
While supporting the six-month Israeli assault on Gaza that the International Court of Justice has found to be plausibly genocidal, the Biden administration is also arming Ukrainians' resistance to a Russian invasion. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the Crisis Group's U.S. program and a former legal adviser at the State Department, pointed to the latter.
"Somehow I don't think the U.S. State Department would defer to Russia as a credible source to investigate itself if a mass grave were discovered in Ukrainian territory it had occupied," Finucane said on social media in response to Stanage's questioning.
Meanwhile, European Union spokesperson Peter Stano made clear Tuesday that the E.U. supports an independent probe.
"This is something that forces us to call for an independent investigation of all the suspicions and all the circumstances, because indeed it creates the impression that there might have been violations of international human rights committed," Stano said. "That's why it's important to have independent investigation and to ensure accountability."
Human rights groups around the world joined the call for an independent investigation on Wednesday, as the official death toll in Gaza hit 34,262 with 77,229 people injured and thousands more missing and presumed dead beneath the rubble.
In an Arabic statement translated by Al Jazeera, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor said that the number of bodies found in the mass graves is "alarming, and requires urgent international action, including the formation of an independent international investigation committee."
The group added that some of those killed were subjected to "premeditated murder as well as arbitrary and extrajudicial executions while they were detained and handcuffed."
Amnesty International senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns Erika Guevara Rosas said in a statement that "the harrowing discovery of these mass graves underscores the urgency of ensuring immediate access for human rights investigators, including forensic experts, to the occupied Gaza Strip to ensure that evidence is preserved and to carry out independent and transparent investigations with the aim of guaranteeing accountability for any violations of international law."
"Lack of access for human rights investigators to Gaza has hampered effective investigations into the full scale of the human rights violations and crimes under international law committed over the past six months, allowing for the documentation of just a tiny fraction of these abuses," she noted. "Without proper investigations to determine how these deaths took place or what violations may have been committed, we may never find out the truth of the horrors behind these mass graves."
Guevara Rosas continued:
Mass grave sites are potential crime scenes offering vital and time-sensitive forensic evidence; they must be protected until professional forensic experts with the necessary skills and resources can safely carry out adequate exhumations and accurate identification of remains.
The absence of forensic experts and the decimation of Gaza's medical sector as a result of the war and Israel's cruel blockade, along with the lack of availability of the necessary resources for the identification of bodies such as DNA testing, are huge obstacles to the identifications of remains. This denies those killed the opportunity to have a dignified burial and deprives families with relatives missing or forcibly disappeared the right to know and to justice—leaving them in a limbo of uncertainty and anguish.
Noting that the International Court of Justice directed Israel to preserve evidence in its initial genocide case order, Guevara Rosas said that "amid a total vacuum of accountability and mounting evidence of war crimes in Gaza, Israeli authorities must ensure they comply with the ICJ ruling by granting immediate access to independent human rights investigators and ensuring that all evidence of violations is preserved."
"Third states must pressure Israel to comply with the ICJ orders by allowing the immediate entry into the Gaza Strip of independent human rights investigators and forensic experts, including the U.N.-appointed Commission of Inquiry and investigators of the International Criminal Court," she added. "There can be no truth and justice without proper, transparent independent investigations into these deaths."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular