|
Is Torture OK For
UK Courts?
As
the full implications of last week's ruling on foreign terrorist
suspects held in England start to sink in, questions are being asked
about what it means for evidence obtained through torture. Last
week, the Court of Appeal ruled foreign terrorism suspects held
without charge at Belmarsh Prison should not be released. The men
claimed their detention may rely on evidence extracted during
torture of al-Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
But the court said that as long as the UK neither supports nor
participates in torture, ministers cannot ignore potentially vital
evidence. So is information extracted during torture valid in UK
courts?
What the law says
The UK is one of 127 signatories to the United Nations Convention
Against Torture. But the Court of Appeal judgement said ministers
had to be sensible about this law in light of current events.
"I am quite unable to see that any such principle prohibits the
[home secretary] from relying on evidence which has been obtained
through torture by agencies of other states," said Lord Justice
Laws. "If the Secretary of State is bound to dismiss [evidence from
torture abroad] his duty becomes extremely problematic. He may be
presented with information of great potential importance, where
there is, let us say, a suspicion as to the means by which, in
another jurisdiction, it has been obtained? What is he to do?"
International fears
The background to this ruling is the question mark over how the US
is conducting its campaign against its enemies. The US-run
Guantanamo Bay detention camp for terrorism suspects, is as
controversial today as when the first plane-load of suspects landed
almost three years ago.
Three of five recently British men released without charge from the
camp say they were tortured there. One said he admitted knowing
Osama Bin Laden just to stop his interrogators. Human rights groups
claim the US secret services are sending terrorism suspects to
friendly Middle East regimes to be interrogated in a harsh manner.
Accepting torture
Home Secretary David Blunkett says his position is clear. "We
unreservedly condemn the use of torture. However, it would be
irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information
which could help protect national security and public safety."
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the official watchdog on terror
laws, recently says he has sympathy with ministers. Should they
ignore reports of a bomb plot, revealed during torture abroad, out
of fear of encouraging the torturer - or act upon it, believing it
may save lives?
The Telegraph newspaper supports this position. "Facts from torture,
are still facts," it declares.
'Evidence unreliable'
But Ellie Smith, a lawyer with the Medical Foundation for the Care
of Victims of Torture, says history shows torture never reveals
facts. "It comes down the quality of proof," she says. "If you have
evidence coming out of Guantanamo, there is no way you can establish
the root of what is being said. "If you cannot cross-examine people,
you cannot test their credibility. Torture evidence in inherently
unreliable."
And Professor Paul Wilkinson, terrorism expert at the University of
St Andrews, fears the West may begin to lose the "war of ideas" and
provide a propaganda weapon to extremists. "Torture is the microcosm
of terrorism. It's one individual terrorising another individual,"
he says. "Once you have done that, you have sacrificed the moral
high ground - and the terrorists are then winning without having
fired a single shot."
Source: BBC
News
17 August 2004
|
%20enjoins%20justice.gif)
