Amnesty International Report 2005

[Englander]

United Kingdom

Covering events from January - December 2004

The UK’s highest court ruled that indefinite detention without trial of non-deportable foreign “suspected international terrorists” discriminated against them unjustifiably and was unlawful. Another court held that “evidence” obtained by torture of a third party would be inadmissible only if it had been directly procured by UK agents or if they had connived in its procurement. The authorities sought to circumvent their obligations under international and domestic human rights law in respect of the conduct of UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Self-inflicted deaths, self-harm, overcrowding and detention conditions in prisons were of major concern. Public inquiries into cases of alleged collusion by security forces in killings in Northern Ireland were announced. However, the authorities further delayed the establishment of an inquiry into the killing of Patrick Finucane.

__________________________


Internment in the UK

Eleven foreign nationals continued to be interned under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA) – legislation adopted after the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA. Most had been detained for more than three years in high-security facilities under severely restricted regimes. A 12th person, an Algerian former torture victim, was “released” in April under strict bail conditions amounting to house arrest.

>snip

Guantánamo Bay

The UK authorities continued to play a duplicitous role in the detention – without any legal basis – of UK residents and nationals in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in US custody. UK intelligence officers had taken advantage of the legal limbo and the coercive detention conditions at Guantánamo Bay to conduct interrogations and to extract information to use in proceedings under the ATCSA.

>snip

UK armed forces in Iraq

There were allegations of unlawful killings, torture, ill-treatment and other violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by UK forces at the time when the UK was recognized as an occupying power in Iraq (see Iraq entry). The UK authorities tried to circumvent domestic and international human rights obligations by asserting that human rights law did not bind UK armed forces in Iraq. AI urged the authorities to establish a civilian-led mechanism to investigate all allegations of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law by UK armed forces.

More at;
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/gbr-summary-eng

[D-Notice]

1. The House of Lords

is hearing the torture appeal later this year (not sure when) - I don't on what grounds they could agree with the Court of Appeal that you can use evidence from torture. What the hell where they thinking when they delivered it?