MCCLEANS
POLL'--Nov. 30th 2
WHO
SHOULD SHOULDER THE BLAME FOR THE ALLEGED TORTURE OF SUSPECTS TRANSFERRED TO
AFGHAN AUTHORITIES BY CANADIAN TROOPS?
The
federal government-Ottawa Didn't do enough to prevent it
31%
Afghanistan-they're
the ones doing the torturing
29%
No
one- these things happen during war
19%
There's
no convincing proof the abuse ever occurred
22%
------------------------
nov.
30
CHECK OUT THIS COMMENT FROM HUFFINGTON POST ON
AFGHAN PRISONS.... ONE OF THE BEST COMMENTS YET- which is why I am responding
at all... is how I totally think like many others "Exactly!"... the
international red cross doesn't visit jails so what's up with that ... and now
all these fabrications.... you really have to wonder about people's mindsets
when they put down their own blood and side with the people who take delight in
killing them and their families... and please, please.... you all voted
President Obama... and he has done such incredible things.... why our global
youngbloods... are actually participating in world affairs... they are
listening and partaking in honest dialogue and debate and intelligent thoughts.
I find it so frustrating and difficult to understand how Americans can drop
someone they put on a pedestal so high even God has to reach down to talk to
them on one day... then tear them to pieces like rapid savages the next. Where
is the balance; patience; loyalty; participation and factfinding and being
colour blind to your personal political bias and look at the whole picture for
the good of all. That is the America that oldies like me love and adore.... the
passion, the raw energy and the teambuilding. Canada will handle this-
allegations of prisoner torture in Afghanistan by Canadian troops and Afghan
policing. We are disappointed that political backbiting (oh how sick we are of
these Canadian parties and how they will all pay come election day in Canada)
has jackknifed this issue that is as serious as even a hit of truth may be
attached- we do know there are legal holes in the procedures of passing
prisoners captured in a foreign country (Afghanistan) under the country's
(Afghanistan's) guidelines and according to international law-UN/whatever....
and we will deal with it. And those Canadian politicians sandbagging Canadians;
or trying to, and putting our troops right there on the ground at risk on this
day because of their me, me, me... will pay, pay, pay very, very dearly at the
polls.... especially if just ONE CANADIAN TROOP DIES IN AFGHANISTAN...over the
next period- when you feed evil- like this is doing ...imagine how the snake of
terror is gurgling and gigglin and hooting over this mess... which cannot even
be put to courts until this war is over.
The article is at Huffington Post (which I rather
enjoy ... and of course it is biased... what news media isn't for God's sake?
We are all intelligent and well educated... and can breeze over the garbage to
find the gold...) and take a read these are the comments... which I find many
times truly reflect the every day person. We want this war in Afghanistan
over.... NOW! and we MUST WIN it NOW! Canada has kept Kandahar - the prize and
pride and joy of the Taliban; or whichever of the six bloody names these snakes
of terror have chosen this week, and not only that... have developed an
incredible relationship with the Afghan citizens of that area and have done
incredible construction and contributions to building up that area the way the
Afghan citizen see their country. And we all want our men and women to come
home... and if we globally work together on this along with the surrounding
countries.... it will happen very soon. Iraq is now a democracy.... they can
have Saddam cable and whatever.... Iraq is now a democracy... and the Iraqi
citizens will never, ever go back to what their world was during the
"Saddam" years... and that's a given. IMO.
COMMENTS:
After perusing the first
20-25 comments, it is no wonder that Obama got elected and the vast readership
of the NY Times are anti-American, anti-military, pro-Muslim terrorist, and
would welcome a Muslim coup of Washington. Many of you are the sons and
daughters who spat in the faces of those returning from Vietnam.
Liberals are uneducated, unrealistic, illogical, and anti-American. I wish all of you would move to Western Europe, where you belong. Liberals are more concerned about the well-being of Islamic terrorists than our military, CIA, American citizens, your families etc...This rag tag group of ZZ Top looking impersonators are sitting in a cave in Pakistan or a jungle in Somalia and plotting how to acquire an atomic device in order to blow-up the New York City Subway, the Mall of America, or the Super Bowl and Liberals are worried if they're getting 3 square meals, proper lighting, and a window in their cell. Nuts!
As for visits from the Red Cross or lack there of: I thought Libs wanted them tried in US criminal courts ala K.S.M, so I don't get it. The International Red Cross doesn't visit our prisons, so why the fuss? Secondly, these terrorists are not part of any nation's or nations' army and therefore, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. One has to be part of a nation and then join their army to have the same rights as the rest of the civilized world; that excludes al Quaeda. So either they are criminals or enemy combatants, but not subject to Geneva Conventions, visit from the Red Cross, or an extra window in their cell.
The Liberal mantra, "we're creating terrorists by having these hidden prisons," what garbage!! Yeah, that is why we were attacked on 9-11 because we had these prisons such as Gitmo in Cuba and in Kanahar, Afghanistan, oops-wait a minute, they attacked us first then came the prisons. Libs need to watch MSNBC more often, even they covered the terrorist attacks first then the prisons. Remember the Danish cartoon depicted Muslims as violent? Those Muslims really showed those Danes as a Fatwah was called for the head of the newspaper. Muslims were just so friendly until we provoked them with a cartoon.
Libs are such morons. Please move to France.
Liberals are uneducated, unrealistic, illogical, and anti-American. I wish all of you would move to Western Europe, where you belong. Liberals are more concerned about the well-being of Islamic terrorists than our military, CIA, American citizens, your families etc...This rag tag group of ZZ Top looking impersonators are sitting in a cave in Pakistan or a jungle in Somalia and plotting how to acquire an atomic device in order to blow-up the New York City Subway, the Mall of America, or the Super Bowl and Liberals are worried if they're getting 3 square meals, proper lighting, and a window in their cell. Nuts!
As for visits from the Red Cross or lack there of: I thought Libs wanted them tried in US criminal courts ala K.S.M, so I don't get it. The International Red Cross doesn't visit our prisons, so why the fuss? Secondly, these terrorists are not part of any nation's or nations' army and therefore, have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. One has to be part of a nation and then join their army to have the same rights as the rest of the civilized world; that excludes al Quaeda. So either they are criminals or enemy combatants, but not subject to Geneva Conventions, visit from the Red Cross, or an extra window in their cell.
The Liberal mantra, "we're creating terrorists by having these hidden prisons," what garbage!! Yeah, that is why we were attacked on 9-11 because we had these prisons such as Gitmo in Cuba and in Kanahar, Afghanistan, oops-wait a minute, they attacked us first then came the prisons. Libs need to watch MSNBC more often, even they covered the terrorist attacks first then the prisons. Remember the Danish cartoon depicted Muslims as violent? Those Muslims really showed those Danes as a Fatwah was called for the head of the newspaper. Muslims were just so friendly until we provoked them with a cartoon.
Libs are such morons. Please move to France.
another
The Red Cross, Amnesty
International, etc. have a tendency to go a bit too far in just about every
circumstance when they aren't given 100% access when they demand it.
Secondly, of course those held aren't going to like it. Its difficult to get an accurate picture--which I believe is the point--but it seems everyone jumps to the conclusion that this is just like GITMO or abu Garab (sp).
The sad fact is that there are a lot of bad people in Afghanistan. Not just Al Qaeda, but Taliban, Narco Trafficers, War lords, etc. Afghanistan has no justice system to speak of so what is the alternative?
Its interesting how quickly liberals are willing to abandon Pres. Obama.
Secondly, of course those held aren't going to like it. Its difficult to get an accurate picture--which I believe is the point--but it seems everyone jumps to the conclusion that this is just like GITMO or abu Garab (sp).
The sad fact is that there are a lot of bad people in Afghanistan. Not just Al Qaeda, but Taliban, Narco Trafficers, War lords, etc. Afghanistan has no justice system to speak of so what is the alternative?
Its interesting how quickly liberals are willing to abandon Pres. Obama.
and...
Yea, if there hanging with
the enemy, feeding them and hiding there guns, there inocent civilians that got
in the way. I take it you don't have any family in Afghanistan or Iraq but
members of my family have been there going on six times now and I ask myself
why in Gods name would they keep volunteering to go back, and the answer always
is to protect the people they love the most, there fellow Marines and soldiers,
Americans with values and princibles you could never have or
understand........Two strangers walk into a party and tat-a-tate with our
president uninvited and you talk about future threats as if there impossible to
occure
-------------------
The
outright butchuring and torture and evil these snakes have done to their own
blood of blood ... and then to have the audacity to complain about ill
treatment as prisoners of the Afghanistan people.... are u kidding me???? Who
gives a care? These butchers have murdered and plundered all and anything in
their way.... they spit on the Koran and have no souls.... they are nothing....
what a waste of precious words and time. UN and Human Rights need to move
on.... and who is paying these people with their fancy clothes and homes etc.
... oh please..... the Canadiand troops need to hire their own shyster- and
make it one of the best and then sue these sleezebags right on back to
dismantling this whole can of maggots. The funamentals of the UN and Human
Rights started out fair... but got twisted over screwing Israel; namely the
Geneva/Swiss Red Cross... and we all know it... and it has gone downhill and
has cost our countries trillions of dollars. And we are in a new world mode and
this just don't work no more. Imagine swine flu shots for this garbage and
whining about not eating for days in protest.... whilst in a clean prison with
all the privileges that our NATO trooops don't have.... blow it out your ear.
We are sooooo over youuuuu.
A
BLOG... TAKE IT WHAT IT'S WORTH... THAT'S ALL BLOGS ARE PERSONAL OPINIONS AND
THOUGHTS AND SOME FACTS NEW AND AGAIN...
HARPER
WILL LET MACKAY SUCK UP AFGHANISTAN TORTURE POISON TO PRESERVE LEADERSHIP (this
so reeks of Canadian backstabbing politics at the cost and reputation of our
Canadian troops... it's a disgrace)
The explosive allegations
about transferred Canadian prisoners being tortured by Afghani officials and
the stink of a government cover-up might initially seem detrimental to Stephen
Harper. However these events might eventually prove personally advantageous to
the prime minister. Harper’s uncharacteristic low-key role on this issue hints
he is throwing his closest rival to the wolves to fortify his leadership
position.
The core of the
"Torturestan" story is as follows.
Early this month, Foreign
Affairs official Richard Colvin stated to a House of Commons committee
"According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we
handed over were tortured. For interrogators in Kandahar, it was a standard
operating procedure." Almost as shocking, Colvin claimed he began
informing the Canadian Forces and Foreign Affairs officials about the situation
in 2006.
As the minister in charge,
Peter MacKay’s first response was to smear Colvin’s credibility and to deny
ever seeing his reports. However it now appears Mackay’s office was copied on
many of Colvin's emails about detainee transfers. Early polls show the public
finds Colvin credible and are outraged that our once peace-promoting nation
might now be guilty of war crimes. This story has legs and has the potential to
be big trouble for the government.
Besides the obvious ethical
and policy implications this story raises, political watchers might also want
to consider how it affects the domestic political scene.
The communications approach
taken by the Conservative Party on Torturestan differs from how the party
usually reacts to such challenges. Ordinarily, Stephen Harper is front and
centre on all issues as he is the cornerstone of the Conservative brand.
Conservative candidates, MPs and even ministers are routinely muzzled in order
to maximize brand focus, often with ruthless discipline. But on this issue, not
only is Harper not front and centre, he was not even present to blunt the
opposition attacks during an initial House of Commons question period. Instead
Harper was presenting jerseys to our national lacrosse team. Harper’s slight
smile captured in an event photo might be less about his love for athletics and
more about the moves he is making in the sport of internal party politics.
Where polls and elections
are about all voters, internal party politics concerns members and donors with
party leaders needing to show constant growth to maintain their positions.
Until now Harper has delivered for his party. In 2004, he won 99 seats, led a
reborn Conservative Party to official opposition status and reduced the
longstanding Liberal government to a minority. In 2006, Harper became a
minority Prime Minister by winning 104 seats. In 2008, he maintained his
minority status by increasing his seat total to 143.
This growth is indeed
impressive, but all party leaders are constantly subject to ‘what have you done
for me lately’ criticism. The next election is critical for Harper and he needs
to win a majority or face dissent in the ranks. If Harper fails to secure a
majority, party insiders will begin to look for successors, basing their
decision on whether to push out Harper according to the estimated strength of
any potential new leader.
Before this incident Peter
Mackay was no doubt Harper’s strongest potential leadership challenger. Mackay
is a political rock star with keen media savvy and the money and connections
needed to (once again) lead the Conservatives. Painfully aware of his
older-but-uglier sibling status, Harper's back seat position will enable most
of the scandal to stick to Mackay and his ministry, not Harper or the
government as a whole. By morphing Torturestan from a party problem to a
personal problem for Mackay Harper preserves the Conservative brand and
undermines Mackay’s future leadership challenge. Watch for a lot more Mackay
and a whole lot less of Harper on this one.
COMMENTS:
I'm sorry you feel that way,
but the rules are explicit for the terms of NATO troops being allowed to
operate as guests of the Afghan government. Captured Afghan nationals must be
turned over to the government for interrogation and holding. Quite simply put,
it isn't our business to detain or prosecute these people.
COMMENTS:
How quickly the Liberals
line up. This is only a major scandal to anyone with a Liberal Party card. The
Liberals appear to know the term Geneva Convention but they ignore the fact
that it doesn't apply and that we are supposedly "helping" the
Afghans in theier country, or isn't that what the Liberals committed Canada to.
They throw any mud at Canada and its military in the hope of smearing Canada.
And their pittiful
partners!!
How much easier and
comfortable and safer it is to be a champion of HUMAN RIGHTS protesting and
ranting in Canada about Canada!!!
------------------
June 18th and 19th
2007 is when the event occured....
amnesty...
who funds...
Who We Are
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of
people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all.
Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity.
We have more than 2.8 million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
You can help make a real difference by becoming a member or supporter of Amnesty International.
Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity.
We have more than 2.8 million members and supporters in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
You can help make a real difference by becoming a member or supporter of Amnesty International.
About Amnesty International
Learn more about our organization,
the work we do and how we’re working hard to change people’s lives. More
about Amnesty International
Amnesty International in your
country
We have offices in more than 80
countries around the world and campaign for human rights for all in many more. More about Amnesty International in your country
Our history
Ever since we started campaigning
in 1961, we’ve worked around the globe to stop the abuse of human rights. More about Amnesty
International's history
Our People
Learn more about the people who
provide leadership and stewardship for the Amnesty International movement. More about our people
FAQ
Everything you need to know about
Amnesty International, including:
Amnesty International in your
country
We have more than 2.2 million
members, supporters and subscribers in over 150 countries and territories, in
every region of the world.
We help stop human rights abuses by
mobilizing the public to put pressure on governments, armed political groups,
companies and intergovernmental bodies via:
·
publication
and promotion of our research findings
·
public
demonstrations
·
vigils
·
letter-writing
campaigns
·
human
rights education
·
awareness-raising
concerts
·
direct
lobbying
·
targeted
appeals
·
email
petitions and other online actions
·
partnerships
with local campaigning groups
·
community
activities
·
co-operation
with student groups
We have offices in 80 countries
around the world. If you would like to join, donate or volunteer your time to
Amnesty International, please contact the Amnesty International office in your
country/territory using the drop-down list to the right.
If you have concerns about human
rights issues in any particular country, please contact the International Secretariat.
Accountability
Amnesty International, as a
membership-based organization, observes a formal system of accountability as
set out in our Statute.
We are also committed to meeting best practice standards in operational excellence, confidentiality, public reporting and transparency.
We seek to comply fully, for example, with public standards for financial reporting and with the International Non-Governmental Organizations’ (INGO) Accountability Charter.
However, it is work for and with individuals whose rights are at risk that lies at the heart of our mission and so it is to them that we owe our deepest accountability.
Methodologies such as impact assessment and stakeholders analysis enable us to ensure Amnesty International is delivering real and positive change for those people for whom we work.
We are also committed to meeting best practice standards in operational excellence, confidentiality, public reporting and transparency.
We seek to comply fully, for example, with public standards for financial reporting and with the International Non-Governmental Organizations’ (INGO) Accountability Charter.
However, it is work for and with individuals whose rights are at risk that lies at the heart of our mission and so it is to them that we owe our deepest accountability.
Methodologies such as impact assessment and stakeholders analysis enable us to ensure Amnesty International is delivering real and positive change for those people for whom we work.
...more at bottome of this page...
Financial report and accounts
Amnesty International is an
unincorporated global movement that consists of national branches throughout
the world and an International Secretariat whose main office is in London.
Financial information about each of Amnesty International's national entities is available from the relevant national secretariat.
The work carried out through Amnesty International's International Secretariat is organized into two legal entities, in compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Charity Limited ("Amnesty InternationalCL") and Amnesty International Limited ("Amnesty InternationalL"), together the "Organization".
The audited financial statement covers the International Secretariat's financial position and takes the form of a consolidated and audited Statement of Financial Activities and Balance Sheet for the year ended 31 March 2008.
Amnesty International Limited and Amnesty International Charity Limited: Report and financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2008
Sitting behind this combined financial statement are the separate statutory financial statements for each of Amnesty International Limited and Amnesty International Charity Limited. These are available on request by email.
Each of these '07/'08 financial statements received an unqualified audit report and have been approved by the directors.
Financial information about each of Amnesty International's national entities is available from the relevant national secretariat.
The work carried out through Amnesty International's International Secretariat is organized into two legal entities, in compliance with United Kingdom law. These are Amnesty International Charity Limited ("Amnesty InternationalCL") and Amnesty International Limited ("Amnesty InternationalL"), together the "Organization".
The audited financial statement covers the International Secretariat's financial position and takes the form of a consolidated and audited Statement of Financial Activities and Balance Sheet for the year ended 31 March 2008.
Amnesty International Limited and Amnesty International Charity Limited: Report and financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2008
Sitting behind this combined financial statement are the separate statutory financial statements for each of Amnesty International Limited and Amnesty International Charity Limited. These are available on request by email.
Each of these '07/'08 financial statements received an unqualified audit report and have been approved by the directors.
------
----
Afghanistan:
Detainees transferred to torture: ISAF complicity?
Index
Number: ASA 11/011/2007
Date Published: 13 November 2007
Date Published: 13 November 2007
Amnesty
International has received reports of torture, other ill-treatment, and
arbitrary detention by Afghanistan's intelligence service. This report builds
on research by Amnesty International into Afghanistan's justice system and
focuses on International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) detention and
transfer policies. The cases highlighted in this report include allegations of
torture by Afghan authorities of transferred detainees; incidents where ISAF
states have lost track of transferred detainees; the difficulties in
independently monitoring detainees in Afghan custody; and the practice of on
the spot transfers without documentation.
97 page
report...
html typing
Memorandums
of Understanding and other agreements between the Afghan Government and ISAF
states: some common elements*
focus on the hand over of detainees by
respective NATO/ISAF states to unspecified "Afghan authorities";
provide that Afghan authorities will
accept the transfer of detainees from detaining country forces, and Afghan
authorities will keep records of transferred detainees;
provide that the signatories treat
detainees in accordance with international law including human rights and
humanitarian law (the UK only specifies human rights law);
provide that representatives of the
respective ISAF state, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),
the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) have access to the
detainees after they have been handed over (the Dutch add relevant UN bodies to
this list, and the Norwegian MoU limits it only to the AIHRC);
provide that the ISAF state will be
notified prior to the initiation of legal proceedings against, release or
transfer to a third country of the detainee (with the exception of Canada);
provide that no person transferred will be
subject to the death penalty.
* AI has
examined the MoUs and other agreements signed between the British, Canadian,
Danish, Dutch and Norwegian governments and the Government of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan.
In the
course of legal action against the Canadian government by Amnesty
International-Canada and the British Colombia Civil Liberties Association (see
box below), the arrangement between the Canadian government and the Afghan
government has been closely scrutinized. As a result of the legal proceedings,
the Canadian government negotiated a second arrangement, strengthening
references to monitoring the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees
after transfer and emphasizing Canada’s commitment to supporting rule of law
and justice in Afghanistan. While these changes are an improvement, AI believes
that Canada’s continued reliance on MoUs concerning the treatment of detainees,
with occasional monitoring of the MoU’s implementation, is not sufficient to
meet international legal requirements.
Central to
this conclusion is that monitoring is a technique to detect torture only after
it happens, and cannot substitute for prior precautions that prevent torture
from happening in the first place. In other words, monitoring detects the
transgressions, but does not forestall them. As such, monitoring cannot meet
Canada’s absolute legal obligation to prevent torture, although it can be
helpful to inform Canada should Afghanistan breach its obligations to prevent
torture and other ill-treatment. Canada’s Foreign Minister has confirmed that
in a period of a few months, Canadian monitors detected instances where
detainees alleged torture—further evidence that Afghan custody and a substantial
risk of torture are inseparable despite Canadian efforts at monitoring.(33)
Legal
action in Canada
Amnesty
International Canada (AI-Canada), in conjunction with the British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) has challenged the Canadian government’s
policy of handing over detainees to the Afghan authorities in the Canadian
courts. Over the past five years AI-Canada has repeatedly called on the
Canadian government to substantially revise its policy on the handling of
detainees apprehended in the course of military operations in Afghanistan and
has outlined serious human rights concerns, including torture and other
ill-treatment, both with respect to the practice that was in place between
2002 and 2005 of transferring detainees into the custody of US forces in
Afghanistan, and the more recent practice, in place since December 2005,(34)
of also transferring detainees into the custody of the Afghan authorities.
In
February 2007, AI-Canada and the BCCLA filed an application in the Federal
Court of Canada seeking an order that the practice of transferring detainees
cease and that Canada locate and account for detainees it has already
transferred.(35)
AI
considers that the outcome of the case will be of international significance
as the approach chosen by the Canadian government is in conformity with
current NATO policy and similar to the approach chosen by other ISAF states.
|
4.1. The
failure of MoUs to protect
At the time
the first MoUs were signed in 2005, ISAF states may have entertained high expectations
regarding the Afghanistan government’s treatment of its detainees, and the MoUs
arose from a clearly legitimate need to regulate a new bilateral – and
multilateral – situation created by the involvement of armed forces of these
states in the non-international armed conflict within Afghanistan.(36) NATO and
ISAF states were advised that the NDS presented the best long term option for
receiving transferred detainees.(37)
Had
Afghanistan complied with its international obligations regarding the treatment
of detainees, each MoU would have been no more than an essentially technical
arrangement between states abiding by their international legal obligations, in
which was included a general reiteration of these obligations. Arrangements for
extra precautions, such as monitoring by diplomatic and military staff from
ISAF states, would have been a welcome addition.
However, AI
remains gravely concerned that detainees handed over by ISAF to the Afghan
authorities are currently at substantial risk of torture and other
ill-treatment. AI reiterates that, in these circumstances, the undertaking by
the Afghan government in the various MoUs to treat detainees handed over by
ISAF states in accordance with international law cannot and does not absolve
these nations of their legal obligation not to transfer a persons to a
situation "where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would
be in danger of being subjected to torture."(38) Only once it can safely
be assessed that no such risk actually exists may ISAF states hand over
detainees without violating this obligation. AI is gravely concerned that this
is currently not the case.
AI has
reviewed the Canadian, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and UK MoUs and other
agreements concluded with the Afghan Ministry of Defence. These agreements aim
to give the Afghan government control over detainees in its territory. They
also ensure a clear distinction between the ISAF mission and the detention of
Afghans and others in the US detention centre at Bagram airbase outside Kabul.(39)
They also establish that detainees are supposed to be treated in accordance
with international standards. For example, the arrangement between the Canadian
and Afghan governments provides the assurance that "the participants will
treat detainees in accordance with the standards set out in the Third Geneva
Convention."(40)
In the
current situation, there is little to distinguish these agreements from the
practice of seeking "diplomatic assurances", used in other contexts
as a disclaimer aimed at absolving the responsibility of the state transferring
detainees to states where torture and other ill-treatment occur. This practice
has been widely condemned by international human rights bodies(41) as well as
human rights NGOs.(42)
While in
both cases the agreements may seek to ensure that detainees are not tortured or
otherwise ill-treated, they have failed to do so. They also constitute a
recognition that the state from which assurances are sought has failed in the
past to live up to existing international legal obligations, and that this
flouting of international obligations will continue, at least as far as those
detainees not covered by the "assurances" are concerned.
4.2.
Monitoring detention: An insufficient safeguard
AI is
concerned that some ISAF states appear to regard the inclusion, within MoUs and
other bilateral agreements with the Afghan Government of arrangements to
monitor transferred detainees as sufficient to fulfil their international
obligations to ensure that they do not transfer detainees to a situation where
they are at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. AI is aware of a number of
challenges to effective monitoring that, in practice, undermine this
assumption.
In a number
of cases, while transferring countries have negotiated access to the detainees
for their representatives, they have not committed to a systematic monitoring
of all detainees that they transfer.
For example
the Arrangement between the Canadian and Afghan governments provides that:
"the
Afghan authorities will accept (as Accepting Power) detainees who have been
detained by the Canadian Forces (the Transferring Power) and will be
responsible for maintaining and safeguarding detainees, and for ensuring the
protections provided in Paragraph 3, above [referring to the Third Geneva
Convention], to all such detainees whose custody has been transferred to
them."(43)
A
supplementary agreement between the Canadian and Afghan governments establishes
that Canadian officials will notify the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission of any such transfers.(44)
Another
agreement, between the UK government and the Afghan government, provides that
"representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
[AIHRC], and UK personnel… and others as accepted between the Participants,
will have full access to any persons transferred by the UK A[rmed] F[orces] to
Afghan authorities whilst such persons are in custody." The agreement also
states that the ICRC and other relevant institutions" will be allowed to
visit such persons" and that the UK will notify the ICRC and the AIHRC
within 24 hours of the transfer.(45)
In
addition, Article 38 of Afghanistan’s Prison law (2005) allows a number of
institutions, including the AIHRC, access to some detention centres without
prior notice to the Ministry of Justice. However, the law is not applicable to
NDS detention centres. In response, the ICRC and the AIHRC have concluded
bilateral agreements with the NDS allowing for monitoring of NDS detention
centres.(46)
In
practice, however, even the monitoring safeguards contained in such agreements
are not met. The AIHRC has indicated that it has often been denied access to
detention centres run by the NDS, and lacks the resources and capacity to carry
out extensive monitoring. An AIHRC Commissioner stated that "the AIHRC has
monitored NDS detention centres, but we had to contact them in advance. It is
not free access, although recently we received a letter signed by the head of
NDS to provide access to AIHRC’s monitors, but this is not happening at the moment…in
Kandahar, we have not [been] provided [with] full access and still we don’t
feel confident about their full cooperation."(47)
While
access by AIHRC monitors to NDS detention centres has improved, the issue of
whether or not they are able to visit without prior notice differs depending on
the prisons and the detainees they are trying to visit. There are reportedly
considerable differences between AIHRC’s access in Kabul compared with NDS
detention centres in the provinces. Furthermore, insecurity in some areas of
the country, particularly the south, restrict the commission’s access to
Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul provinces.
AIHRC staff
members have reportedly expressed concern that they do not have the capacity to
respond the volume of detention cases they seek to monitor.(48) In response the
Canadian government has recently made a special financial contribution to the
AIHRC to build the capacity of the commission’s national monitoring section.
The role of
the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) in monitoring is
also significant given its UN mandate "to continue to work towards the
establishment of a fair and transparent justice system, including the
reconstruction and reform of the correctional system" and more specifically
"to continue to contribute to human rights protection and promotion,
including monitoring of the situation of civilians in armed conflict."(49)
UNAMA is
one of the organisations who have raised serious concerns about the treatment
of detainees by the NDS. UNAMA has initiated at least one programme with the
NDS, alongside the AIHRC to provide human rights training to NDS officers.(50)
Given the mandate of UNAMA and its resources it is appropriate for UNAMA to
expand its support for the AIHRC in gaining access to NDS detention centres.
The ICRC
also monitors Afghan detention centres, including those run by the NDS and,
when relevant, informs the Afghan government about its findings. However as
noted above it has not been possible for the ICRC to monitor all NDS prisons,
or all prisons managed by the Ministry of Justice because of unstable security
conditions.(51)
AI is
concerned that provisions in the MoUs governing monitoring are only implemented
in part. More fundamentally, the organisation emphasises that - even where
carried out by a professional, independent and dedicated organization - visits
to places of detention, while constituting a crucial element in the prevention
of torture and other ill-treatment, are far from being sufficient on their own.
These concerns are reinforced by the experiences of the ICRC in Iraq and
Guantánamo Bay – and indeed in relation to Bagram in Afghanistan, where torture
and other ill-treatment were inflicted extensively despite ICRC’s regular
visits, monitoring of reported abuse and relaying of concerns.(52)
In this
regard, AI recognizes that the ICRC does not claim that visits by its staff to
places of detention are all that are needed to safeguard against torture and
other ill-treatment, and have refused to take part in monitoring "diplomatic
assurances" because of their discriminatory nature, as seen above.(53)
AI remains
concerned that provisions for monitoring within the MoUs, as with other forms
of diplomatic assurance regarding torture and other ill-treatment, often appear
to be overstated, mistaken or misunderstood. The organization believes that
where torture and other ill-treatment is occurring, as in the Afghan detention
system, occasional or periodic visits from monitors will not be able to provide
sufficient protection on their own.
AI has long
advocated for a 12 point plan in order to prevent torture and other
ill-treatment (included in appendix) and believes that monitoring can play a
constructive role, but the limitations of monitoring as a protective measure
should be recognised.
4.3. The
need for redress
While the
MoUs ensure access to detainees, in differing degrees, by organizations such as
the AIHRC, ICRC and the UN, they include no means of redress in cases where
torture or other ill-treatment do take place. Under Article 12 of the UN
Convention against Torture, every state party must "ensure that its
competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever
there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed
in any territory under its jurisdiction."(54)
Of the five
countries with agreements regarding detainee transfer, only the second Canadian
agreement specifies provisions for investigation into allegations of torture or
other ill-treatment.(55) However AI fears that investigations by the Canadian
government into allegations may not have been "competent" and
"impartial".(56)
Under both
the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN
Convention against Torture, victims of torture and other ill-treatment have the
right to "effective remedy" or "redress", including
"fair and adequate compensation."(57)The right to redress, or
reparations, for victims of human rights violations includes the following
components:
Restitution, for instance release (of
detainees and prisoners), restoration of legal rights and return of property;
Compensation, including for physical or
mental harm, lost opportunities, harm to reputation or dignity and legal and
medical costs
Rehabilitation, including medical and
psychological care, legal and social services, and social reintegration
Satisfaction, including cessation of
continued violations, disclosure of the truth (without causing further harm),
search for victims who have been forcibly disappeared or killed, and an apology
for the wrong done.
Guarantees of non-repetition, including
steps to ensure effective civilian control of military and security forces and
that all civilian and military proceedings abide by international standards of
due process, fairness and impartiality, and strengthening the independence of
the judiciary
None of
these are specifically referred to in the MoUs.
5.
Transfers and torture
"We
cannot rule out that torture is going on"(58)
The
following section addresses a number of issues raised by ISAF’s detainee
transfer policies. Concerns relate to a range of situations including when
transferred detainees have allegedly been tortured by the Afghan authorities;
when governments are concerned that transferred detainees may have been
tortured; and when governments, having exposed transferred detainees to the
risk of torture and other ill-treatment cannot track or trace them.
In
examining ISAF detention procedures, Amnesty International has focused
particularly on the ISAF practice of handing over the majority of detainees to
the NDS. While recognising that a minority of detainees are transferred to
other Afghan agencies, AI has particular concerns about the frequency and scope
of torture and other ill-treatment perpetrated by NDS personnel, as illustrated
by the three cases below.
Additionally,
to demonstrate that torture, other ill-treatment, and arbitrary detention of
persons, does not relate only to detainees arrested and transferred by
international forces, concerns relating to arrests carried out solely by the
NDS are also highlighted.
5.1.
Detainees handed over by foreign forces
Five ISAF
states have MoUs with the Afghan Government regarding detainee transfers. A
further four are actively seeking an MoU.(59) Of the remaining 14 ISAF states
with more than 100 personnel in Afghanistan, four have confirmed to AI that
they do not have an MoU, while the remainder refused to comment or were unable
to verify the existence of an MoU (see table below for a full list of
countries).(60)
Individual
governments have responded in different ways to the issue of detainee
transfers. These have included downplaying the number of transfers that occur,
either by not revealing the true extent of their transfers (i.e. Canada), not
keeping an accurate record themselves (i.e. Belgium and Norway); by failing to
take account of the large number of people transferred in the field – who are
never recorded as having been in the custody of international forces (this
mainly includes forces involved in heavy fighting such as the British, Canadian
and Dutch forces)(61)and finally some governments have struggled with providing
adequate independent monitoring of the detainees they have transferred
(particularly the British and the Dutch).
TABLES...
Status of
MoU
Governments
with signed MoUs or agreements with the Afghan government regarding the
transfer of detainees
Countries
Canada,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, UK
MORE AT
THIS SITE ON TABLES...
CONTD...
AI is
concerned that the number of detainees transferred, and thereby placed at grave
at risk of torture and other ill-treatment, may be significantly higher than
formerly reported by ISAF states. The organization believes that incomplete
records of arrest and transfers are reflective of broader weaknesses in
comprehensive monitoring of detainees following their transfer.
Torture of detainees transferred by
Canadian forces
In April
2007, the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mailpublished allegations of torture and
other ill-treatment of Afghan detainees by Afghan security personnel including
the NDS, after they had been detained by the Canadian military and handed over
to the Afghan authorities. Some interviewees who had been captured over the
previous 15 months described how:
"…they
were whipped with electrical cables, usually a bundle of wires about the length
of an arm. Some said the whipping was so painful that they fell unconscious.
Interrogators also jammed cloth between the teeth of some detainees, who
described hearing the sound of a hand-crank generator and feeling the hot flush
of electricity coursing through their muscles, seizing them with spasms.
Another man said the police hung him by his ankles for eight days of beating.
Still another said he panicked as interrogators put a plastic bag over his head
and squeezed his windpipe. Torturers also used cold as a weapon, according to
detainees who complained of being stripped half-naked and forced to stand
through winter nights when temperatures in Kandahar drop below freezing."
(63)
The Afghan
Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) is reported to have confirmed key
elements of three of the cases published in the Globe and Mailreport:
"Gul Mohammed, 25, a farmer, said he
was captured by Canadians while working the fields west of Kandahar city. The
Canadian troops handed him over to Afghan soldiers, starting what he described
as a bloody six-month odyssey at the hands of Afghan interrogators from the
military, police and intelligence services. He said they beat him with rifle
butts, deprived him of sleep, shocked him with electrical probes, and thrashed
him with bundles of cables."
"Sherin, 25, a driver, said he was
detained at a checkpoint operated by Canadian and Afghan troops in a district
north of Kandahar city. A small man with a quiet voice, he gripped his elbows
with both hands and rocked back and forth while describing how he was
interrogated by a man who identified himself as a Canadian, before he was
thrown in the back of a pickup truck and taken to NDS headquarters. He spent
one and a half months in NDS custody, he said, where interrogators punched his
face, pulled his beard, and beat him with bundles of electrical cables for 60
strokes at a time."
"Abdul Wali, 23, a tailor, said he
was arrested by the Canadians and was treated politely until they handed him
over to the Afghan soldiers, who beat him. He said the beatings were constant,
except for pauses when Canadian soldiers visited the outpost. Worse thrashings
came later, he said, at the hands of the police and NDS."(64)
Analysis of
interviews with 15 individuals held in Afghan custody, but who were originally
captured by Canadian forces, reveals that 10 were transferred to the NDS,
either directly or through the Afghan National Army (ANA) or Afghan National
Police (ANP). Of the 10 detainees held in NDS custody, six described torture and
other forms of ill-treatment.(65) Canadian officials themselves have stated
they have received at least six first-hand reports of torture. (66)
The
Canadian government has continued to state that more than 40 individuals have
been transferred.(67) However, AI believes that the number of transfers may be
as high as 200, and that this figure does not include many of the immediate
transfers which happen in the course of military operations in-field.
Losing track of transferred detainees
AI is also
concerned that other ISAF states have been unable or unwilling to maintain an
accurate record of the number of detainees transferred to Afghan authorities or
their subsequent whereabouts.
The
Norwegian government, for example, appeared unable over the course of a year to
establish and disclose how many detainees its forces had transferred.
Subsequently, in October 2007, the Norwegian government clarified that five
detainees had been handed over since the signing of an MoU with the Afghan
Government in October 2006. However it is still to establish how many people
were transferred prior to the MoU, or to account for their whereabouts and
conditions.(68)
Uncertainty
over the current whereabouts and well-being of the five detainees identified as
have been transferred after MoUs agreement has continued. The Norwegian Defence
Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen said that three of the five people handed
over were since released, not due to proving their innocence, but by buying
their freedom from their captors.(69)
In a further
admission of the failure of MoUs, the Defence Minister said: "I have no
guarantee that the detainees have not been tortured, other than having signed
the Memorandum of Understanding."(70)
As
described above, both before and after signing an MoU, the Norwegian government
appeared unable to confirm the whereabouts and condition of detainees. This has
reinforced AI’s concern that such MoUs have failed to provide any transparency
in the transfer process, or any protection for the individuals’ concerned.
In April
2007, the Norwegian embassy in Kabul sent an email to the Norwegian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs that raised concerns about "the intelligence service (NDS)
who allegedly have ill-treated and tortured several prisoners transferred by
international military forces in Afghanistan". As well as highlighting
their own concerns, they noted the difficulty in applying remedial pressure on
the NDS.(71)
The
Ministry announced that Norway would establish what happened to the prisoners
handed over by Norwegian soldiers, and whether the MoU had been breached.(72)
If detainees had been tortured, the Ministry told another newspaper, the
ultimate consequence might be to "stop transfers" of prisoners.(73)
Similarly,
the Belgian government appears to have lost track of the single detainee known
to have been transferred to the Afghan authorities by Belgian forces. Reports
received by Belgian Ministry of Defence state that an individual was arrested
by Belgian forces at Kabul international airport on suspicion of driving a fuel
tanker intended as a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device or car bomb on
18 April 2007.
The Belgian
military has confirmed that paperwork for the transfer of the detainee to the
NDS was completed and that they were transferred, but they do not know where
the individual is being held.(74) AI has requested clarification from the
Belgian authorities regarding this issue. At present Belgium is reported to be
seeking to agree an MoU with the Afghan authorities, but AI fears that such an
agreement would appear to offer little difference to the capacity of the
Belgian government to make clear, open records of incidents and to follow them
up with the Afghan government.
The need for independent monitoring
Challenges
in accurately recording the numbers of those arrested by ISAF forces and
effectively monitoring their subsequent treatment after transfer to Afghan
authorities are particularly evident in the context of continuing military
operations in Helmand and Uruzgan provinces. The security situation in these
provinces remains unstable, with often heavy fighting involving British and
Dutch ISAF contingents, Afghan forces, the Taleban and other armed groups.
The British
and Dutch governments have informed AI that they have transferred detainees to
Afghan authorities in these provinces. Both governments have stated that they
try to ensure that their own officials monitor the detainees, in the British
case on a monthly basis.(75) However, as outlined later in the report, because
of the prevailing security situation, independent monitoring of transferred
detainees by the AIHRC and the ICRC is almost impossible. In this situation,
while ISAF states have carried out occasional monitoring of transferred
detainees, AI remains concerned that this cannot substitute for regular,
independent monitoring.
According
to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the UK has detained 127 people
since September 2006. These are categorized into two groups. In the first
group, the initial 51 people were detained before April 2007. (76) Of these 51,
27 were released by UK forces and 24 transferred to the NDS in Helmand
province. All but three detainees have since been released by the NDS. Of the
remaining three, two detainees have been transferred to NDS in Kandahar and one
detainee, transferred by the UK forces to NDS custody on 22 April 2007, remains
in NDS custody in Helmand.
The second
group consists of a further 76 people detained by UK forces since April 2007,
of whom 18 remain in NDS custody. In total 21 people remain in NDS custody 18
in Helmand, 1 in Kandahar and 2 in Kabul.(77)
According
to the Dutch government, by August 2007 Dutch forces had detained 59 people.
Amongst these are 10 individuals that were arrested by Australian units but for
whom the Dutch have taken over responsibility (as provided for in the MoU
between the Dutch and Australian forces). The majority have been released
shortly after their arrest. Eleven were handed over to the NDS and most of
those were released shortly thereafter.(78)
Three
individuals were arrested on 29 January 2007 by Dutch forces and handed over to
the NDS in Kabul on 4 February. The Dutch Ambassador visited these three
detainees in Kabul on 2 March and found them to be in good health. One of them
was released by the NDS Security Court in April, and the two others were
sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for armed opposition and possession of
illegal weapons.
Another
group of six detainees were handed over to the NDS in Kabul on 15 July by Dutch
forces. They were visited by a representative of the Dutch embassy who said
they were ‘in reasonable condition given the circumstances’. On 14 August two
others were handed over to the NDS in Kabul. The total number of people
arrested by the Dutch or Australians that were still in Afghan detention by 14
August is 10.(79)
It is
encouraging that both the British and Dutch governments have kept records of
the detainees they have transferred, and they have also been able to conduct
some monitoring themselves. The UK has tried to ensure that detainees are
monitored on a monthly basis and have a set list of criteria for which to carry
out the monitoring. The UK has also been able to meet detainees without the
presence of prison guards.(80)
UK
officials have told AI that while the main NDS facility in Kabul is "at
its capacity" they are generally satisfied with the cleanliness and
amenities of the detention facilities.(81) While the UK authorities prior to
September 2007 stated that they were unaware of any evidence of transferred
detainees being abused, officials informed AI that a first allegation of
torture or other ill-treatment from a transferred detainee had been received on
25 September 2007. The UK government assured AI that the complaint is currently
being investigated and that the ICRC and AIHRC had been informed.(82)
The Dutch
government has sought to overcome some of the barriers to effective monitoring
by insisting that detainees are transferred to Kabul where they can be more
easily monitored. In a letter to the Dutch Parliament the Dutch government,
referring to the three detainees that were arrested on 29 January, said that
"…to the best information of the government the Afghan-Dutch MOU…is
respected by the Afghan authorities."(83) However, despite the detainees
being in Kabul it is unclear to AI if independent monitors have been able to
access these detainees.
Critically,
because most of the 31 people held by the NDS after being handed over by
British and Dutch forces are in areas not accessible to independent monitors,
it is not possible to assert with confidence that they are not at risk of
torture and other ill-treatment. In light of the reports of abuse by the NDS
outlined in more detail below, AI believes that access by independent monitors
constitutes an essential part of an effective monitoring regime, and that, when
security conditions threaten to prevent such access, ISAF should take steps
facilitate the work of independent monitors.
While AI
notes that procedural arrangements provided for in the British and Dutch MoUs
appear to be functioning to a greater degree than those of other ISAF states,
as described above the organization asserts that MoUs do not absolve the states
of their obligations to prevent torture and other ill-treatment.
In-field transfers
Alongside
the transfer of detainees as regulated under MoUs or other procedural
arrangements, ISAF states are also reportedly transferring detainees over to
Afghan custody in-field. This is when international forces are on joint
operations with Afghan forces, which could include the ANA, ANP or the NDS, and
the individuals are transferred on the spot to Afghan forces.
AI is
concerned that such in-field transfers are not subject to procedural
regulations and that the subsequent risk of grave human rights abuse is
therefore higher. In one illustrative incident, shown in a television
documentary broadcast in the UK, British forces were shown handing over a
captured Taleban fighter to the ANA in Helmand.(84) In the documentary, the
British soldiers appeared convinced that the detainee would be abused when
handed over to the ANA, while a number of Afghan soldiers in the film expressed
their wish to kill the detainee.
It is
believed that hundreds of individuals may have been transferred in-field - with
most reportedly occurring in southern Afghanistan and primarily conducted by
Australian, British, Canadian, Dutch, and US forces. However the full extent of
in-field transfers remains unclear, as does the nature of the treatment of such
persons after they are handed over to Afghan forces. Another illustrative case,
in which Canadian forces reportedly intervened to stop the summary execution of
a detainee they had handed over to the ANA in-field has reinforced AI’s grave
concerns about this practice.(85)
AI is
concerned that ISAF states are failing to effectively address the grave risk of
abuse and summary executions that individuals captured during joint Afghan and
international operations face from Afghan security personnel in contexts where
the international forces are exercising operational control.
5.
AB,(89)
who was detained after an NDS raid in Kandahar province in mid-2005, gave the
following statement to Amnesty International in December 2005:
"We
were taken to the NDS compound in Kandahar… [The room where they beat me] was
a big concrete room with a door and small window. It had two big tables and a
hanger or hook on the ceiling and the walls were covered with blood… I was
beaten on my back and especially my kidneys with a metal cable... After some
50-60 cable blows, I fell unconscious but then when I came to they were still
beating me. I didn’t know how long I had been out… [Later] a metal bar was
placed under my chained arms and knees and I was hung from the hook on the
ceiling and they continued to beat me. I was hung in this position for maybe
one hour and lost consciousness. They then put me on the ground and water was
thrown on me then I was hung back up again. This may have happened six times
but I cannot remember. It could have been 20 or 25 times…
Around 12
or 13 men beat me on the first night of my detention. There was never any
questioning and I never saw a prosecutor or judge while in NDS custody. For
10 days and nights after the beating I could not move. After 10 nights I was
able to change my clothes and take a bath… After 20-25 days they brought me
to a doctor. He gave me some tablets but I didn’t know what they were. Other
than that, I received no medical care. I was ‘kept’ [for] two months."
AB’s
family has not received any assistance or compensation from the government
and are now reportedly living on charity from other family members. In an
indication of the disillusionment caused by the lack of transparency and
apparent impunity shielding suspected perpetrators from prosecution, the
family did not lodge a formal complaint about AB’s treatment. They believe
that complaints "go nowhere".
|
The
organization is also concerned at continuing patterns of arbitrary
incommunicado detention by the NDS, which can provide the facilitating context
for torture or other ill-treatment. Those at risk include journalists and
others suspected of opposing the authorities or perceived as critical of
government policy.
Kamran Mir
Hazar, a journalist for Radio Salaam Watandar and editor of the internet news
service Kabul Press, was arrested twice in two months in 2007. Initially
arrested without a warrant on 4 July and held incommunicado, he was released
four days later without charge, after civil society actors had made urgent
representations to the authorities.(90)
He was
arrested again on 9 August 2007 and released after nine hours but "was
threatened with being arrested again if he criticized the government in his
articles."(91) According to sources in Kabul, during Kamran’s detention
the NDS denied that he had been arrested by them or was in their custody.
In another
case Rahmatullah Hanefi, director of a hospital run by the Italian
non-governmental organization ‘Emergency’ in Helmand province, was detained by
the NDS on 20 March 2007 in Lashkar Gah city. Rahmatullah Hanefi worked as a
messenger in the negotiations between the Taleban and the Afghan and Italian
governments that led to the release of kidnapped Italian journalist Daniele
Mastrogiacomo on 19 March 2007. He was detained incommunicado for almost two
months and kept in solitary confinement.
Unnamed
Afghan authorities in Kabul confirmed that because he had been charged with an
offence against national security he would not be automatically granted a
lawyer for his defence.(92) Rahmatullah Hanefi was acquitted of all charges on
16 June and released on 19 June, exactly three months after being detained.
5. Prohibit
torture and other ill-treatment in law
Governments
should adopt laws for the prohibition and prevention of torture and other
ill-treatment incorporating the main elements of the UN Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(Convention against Torture) and other relevant international standards. All
judicial and administrative corporal punishments should be abolished. The
prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the essential safeguards for
their prevention must not be suspended under any circumstances, including
states of war or other public emergency.
This
12-point programme sets out measures to prevent the torture and other ill-treatment
of people who are in governmental custody or otherwise in the hands of agents
of the state. It was first adopted by Amnesty International in 1984, revised in
October 2000 and again in April 2005. Amnesty International holds governments
to their international obligations to prevent and punish torture and other
ill-treatment, whether committed by agents of the state or by other
individuals. Amnesty International also opposes torture and other ill-treatment
by armed political groups.
31)
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan concerning transfer by the United Kingdom Armed Forces to Afghan
Authorities of persons detained in Afghanistan, para. 1c and 2.1.
(32)
Statement by Canadian Forces’ Colonel Neil Anderson during an interview on CBC
Radio One, The Current, 10 April 2006.
(33) Murray
Brewster, "Canadians hear six claims of torture from Afghans", Globe
and Mail (Toronto), 8 June 2007; Bruce Campion-Smith, "MacKay admits 6
Afghan abuse allegations exist", Toronto Star, 9 June 2007.
(34)
Arrangement for the transfer of detainees between the Canadian forces and the
Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan adopted 18 December
2005. Arrangement for the transfer of detainees between the Canadian forces and
the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, adopted 3 May
2007.
(35)
Amnesty International Canada and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
v. Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces, Minister of National
Defence and Attorney General of Canada, Federal Court file number T-324-07.
(36) For
further discussion on the non-international status of the ongoing conflict in
Afghanistan please see section 3.
(37)
Meeting between NATO officials and Amnesty International representatives,
Brussels, 8 October 2007
(38) UN
Convention against Torture, Article 3.
43)
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the
Ministry of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, para 5 18 December, 2005. The
Arrangement signed on 3 May 2007 also adds, "the Afghan authorities will
be responsible for treating such individuals in accordance with Afghanistan’s
international human rights obligations including prohibiting torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment…" Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees
between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, para 4, 3 May 2007.
53) The
ICRC has developed a set of pre-conditions without which it would refuse to
visit detainees. One of these is "to see all prisoners who come within its
mandate and to have access to all places at which they are held." See ICRC
website, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList265/929018E28243CCB0C1256B6600600D8C,
accessed 28 October 2005.
(54) In its
conclusions and recommendations on the UK in 2004 the UN Committee against
Torture addressed the issue of the extra-territorial application of the UN
Convention against Torture. The Committee expressed concern over the UK’s
"limited acceptance of the applicability of the Convention to the actions
of its forces abroad, in particular its explanation that "those parts of
the Convention which are applicable only in respect of territory under the
jurisdiction of a State party cannot be applicable in relation to actions of
the United Kingdom in Afghanistan and Iraq""; The Committee rejected
this approach, observing that "the Convention protections extend to all
territories under the jurisdiction of a State party and considers that this
principle includes all areas under the de facto effective control of the State
party's authorities". See UN Committee Against Torture, Conclusions and
Recommendations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -
Dependent Territories, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004, para. 4(b).
(55)
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the
Ministry of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, para 10, 3 May 2007.
(56) Under
cross examination conducted 11 July, 2007 in Federal Court file number
T-324-07, Scott Proudfoot from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, was only able to say that it was "their
impression" that the investigations were "thorough and serious and
independent".
(57) See
Articles 2(3)(a) of the ICCPR and 14(1) of the UN Convention against Torture,
respectively.
(58) Liv
Monica Stubholt, Ministry of Foreign Affairs interviewed by the Norwegian News
Agency NTB, 27 July 2007.
(63) Graeme
Smith, "From Canadian custody into cruel hands", Globe and Mail, 23
April, 2007. For a further account of torture see: Graeme Smith, "Personal
Account: A story of torture", Globe and Mail, 24 April 2007.
(64) Graeme
Smith, "From Canadian custody into cruel hands", Globe and Mail, 23
April, 2007.
(65)
Information regarding interviews from a confidential source in Afghanistan,
July 2007.
(66)
"Six claims of torture from detainees: Minister", Canada Press 8 June
2007 Canadian Press? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070608/detainee_allegations_070608/20070608/
(67)
Paragraph 52 of the Affidavit of Colonel Steven Noonan, Canadian Forces, sworn
May 1, 2007, in relation to Federal Court of Canada file number T-324-07, and
transcripts of cross examination conducted May 2, 2007.
NOTE:
here is
Noonan's testimony.... it's all there if you want to check it out...
this is the
reference to this article.... 2007....
Six claims
of torture from detainees: minister
·Canadian Press
Date:
Friday Jun. 8, 2007 9:29 PM ET
OTTAWA —
Forty-eight hours after conceding Canadian diplomats had received four direct
complaints of torture involving suspected Taliban fighters, the Conservatives
belatedly set-the-record straight late Friday, admitting there now are six
abuse allegations.
The
relevation led to renewed opposition charges of a coverup over the political
handling of the prisoner scandal.
Four of the
abuse claims have surfaced in the wake of Canada signing a revised prisoner
transfer agreement with Afghanistan.
Earlier
this week, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and Public Safety Minister
Stockwell Day told a special joint meeting of the Commons defence and foreign
affairs committees that four allegations of abuse -- involving Taliban captured
by Canadians but handed over to Afghan authorities -- had been reported.
A spokesman
for MacKay corrected that on Friday and said that Foreign Affairs staff have
been keeping track of reports within their own department only since Canada had
signed a new detainee monitoring agreement on May 3.
"The
government of Afghanistan has committed to investigate the claims and they'll
be working closely with the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. This is
their role and their responsibility," said Andre LeMay.
Liberal
foreign affairs critic Ujjal Dosanjh reacted with outrage, saying it's clear
the department wasn't paying attention before the controversy erupted.
"There
is obviously a lot of confusion on the detainees issue, with each of these
three ministers -- Defence, Foreign Affairs and Public Safety -- saying
different and contradictory things at different times," said Dosanjh.
"It
appears no-one is in complete control of the situation."
Three of
the fresh reports come from prisoners interviewed in the country's notorious
intelligence service jail in Kabul -- the fourth account was obtained in
Kandahar. The precise details of the allegations were not made clear, although
earlier this week MacKay described the initial reports as serious.
"All I
can tell you is that these claims came to light in private interviews with
Canadian officials," said LeMay. "These officials had clear and
unrestricted access."
NDP defence
critic Dawn Black said she finds it hard to believe any assurances from the
government.
"Since
I started asking questions about the treatment of detainees more than a year
ago, we have heard nothing but contradictions, fabrications and cover-up from
this government -- and now we find they've misled two Parliamentary Committees?
This is unacceptable."
Where the
alleged abuse took place is also unclear. Canadians do not patrol the Afghan
capital and all of their prisoners are taken in the southern provinces of
Kandahar or Helmand. It is routine practice, however, once Afghan authorities
take custody of a prisoner for that individual to be transferred to Kabul for
interrogation by intelligence officers.
The latest
revelation could boost a legal challenge by Amnesty International and the B.C.
Civil Liberities Association, which have applied to the Federal Court for an
injunction to halt the transfers. They argue that Canada could find itself
complicit in torture if it knowingly hands prisoners over to authorities who
will abuse them.
In April,
Day revealed that two Corrections Canada officers working in Kandahar had heard
complaints from a pair of prisoners in the notorious jails of the Afghan
intelligence service that they had been tortured. Those reports are still being
investigated by Afghan authorities, but LeMay cast doubt Friday as to whether
Canada had an interest in these earlier claims beyond usual human rights
concerns.
"It is
not clear whether these particular detainees had been transferred by Canada or
other NATO forces," he said.
Media
reports have said as many as 33 prisoners captured by Canadians and handed over
to the Afghans may have been beaten.
The
allegation in late April set off bitter opposition attacks, which set the
Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper back on its heels.
After two weeks of contradictory explanations, the Conservatives signed a
revised transfer agreement with Afghanistan -- one that allowed Canadian
officials direct, private access where the condition of detainees could be
checked.
The initial
agreement, inked by the former government of prime minister Paul Martin in the
early weeks of the 2005-06 election, did not provide such access.
and it continues here...
(78) Letter
from the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defence and Minister of
Development Cooperation to the Dutch Parliament of 24 August 2007
(79)
Information from letters from the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister
of Defence and Minister of Development Cooperation to the Dutch Parliament of
20 June and 24 August 2007.
(80) Email
exchange and phone conversation with FCO official, 24 September 2007.
(81) Email
exchange and phone conversation with FCO official, 6 September and 10 September
2007.
(82) Email
exchange and phone conversation with FCO official, 2 October 2007.
(83) Letter
from the Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defence and Minister of
Development Cooperation to Dutch Parliament of 20 June 2007.
(84)
"Fighting the Taleban" a documentary by Sean Langan for Dispatches,
broadcast in the UK on Channel 4 on 8 January 2007.
(85)
"Cdn. troops battle Taliban in 'The main event'", Canadian TV news
report, 29 May 2006.
(86)
"The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace
and security" Report of the UN Secretary-General, S/2007/152, para. 41, 15
March 2007.
(87)
"The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace
and security" report of the Secretary-General, para 84, S/2007/555, 21
September 2007
(88) Taken
from Rule of Law and Justice Sector Benchmarks, Interim Afghanistan National
Development Strategy, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, December 2005
(89) AB’s
real name is withheld for security reasons.
(90)
International Federation of Journalists press release 24 July 2007, available
at http://www.ifex.org/alerts/content/view/full/85067
(91)
Reporters sans frontiers, Website editor freed after being held for nine hours
in Afghan "Guantanamo", 10 August 2007, available at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=22847
(92)
"Emergency Mediator, charged with homicide", Corriere della Sera, 23
April 2007.
(93) Report
of the Secretary-General, The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for
peace and security, UN Doc. A/61/326-S/2006/727 (2006), para. 51.
(94) http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/brahimi-sc-july19.htmlast
visited 3 May 2007
(95) The
wing is currently believed to hold around 100 Afghans, many of whom have been
returned from Guantánamo Bay.
(96) ICRC,
The provincial prisons of Afghanistan: Technical assessment and recommendations
regarding the state of the premises and of the water and sanitation
infrastructure, Kabul, December 2005
(97) See M.
Cherif Bassiouni and Daniel Rothenberg, "An Assessment of Justice Sector
and Rule of Law Reform in Afghanistan and the Need for a Comprehensive
Plan", p 10, Presented at the Conference on the Rule of Law in Afghanistan
held in Rome on 2 – 3 July 2007. Other documentation relating to the conference
can be found at http://www.rolafghanistan.esteri.it/ConferenceRol
(98) The
name of Afghanistan’s security agency has changed several times, it was
initially called AGSA (Department for Safeguarding the Interests of
Afghanistan) and was then changed to KAM (Workers’ Intelligence Department). In
the 1980s it became KhAD (State Information Services). KhAD was a much larger
organisation than its predecessors. The current name is the National Security
Directorate which has been in use since 2001. For more information on this
evolution, see Kakar, M. Hassan, Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the
Afghan Response, 1979-1982. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1995
1995. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft7b69p12h/
(99) For
early analysis of the Afghan intelligence service and the Court for National
Security, see Amnesty International, "Reports of torture and long-term
detention without trial", (AI Index: ASA 11/01/91) 1991;
"Afghanistan: Unfair trials by special tribunals", (AI Index: ASA
11/03/91) 1991.
(100) See
"Confronting Afghanistan’s Security dilemma: Reforming the security
sector", Brief 28, Mark Sedra, Berlin International Center for Conversion
(BICC) (2003) http://www.bicc.de/publications/briefs/brief28/content.php
(101)
Asia-Pacific Daily Report February 5, 2004, http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/12018.pdf,
accessed on 16 July 2007
(102)
Security sector transformation in Afghanistan, Mark Sedra, Working Paper 143,
Geneva Centre for the democratic control of armed forces (DCAF) (August 2004)
(103)
Information received from sources in Afghanistan
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.