UNODC Training course for trial lawyers - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – UNODC Training course for trial lawyers PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 676dae-NWE4Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

UNODC Training course for trial lawyers

Description:

Title: PowerPoint Presentation Author: ubya329 Last modified by: Bill Bowring Created Date: 12/15/2004 3:41:51 PM Document presentation format: On-screen Show – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:41
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 17
Provided by: ubya329
Learn more at: http://www.bbk.ac.uk
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: UNODC Training course for trial lawyers


1
UNODC Training course for trial lawyers
International legal instruments, national
legislation and casework practice with regard to
prevention and suppression of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of suspects
and accused Tashkent, Uzbekistan
  • Professor Bill Bowring
  • Birkbeck College, University of London
  • Trustee since 1992 of the Redress Trust (working
    for reparation for torture survivors)
  • Criminalization of torture and ill-treatment
    prosecuting suspected torturers
  • Overview of legislation and practice in the
    United Kingdom

2
A bad start
  • Ireland v UK (18/01/1978)
  • Between January and July 1971 - a dramatic
    upsurge in terrorist activity by the IRA. Police
    statistics record a total of 304 explosions,
    including 94 for the one month of July.
  • By 9 August, 13 soldiers, 2 policemen and 16
    civilians had died since the beginning of the
    year. In addition, serious and prolonged rioting
    occurred in both Catholic and Protestant areas.
  • On 9 August 1971 the Northern Ireland Government
    brought into operation extrajudicial measures of
    detention and internment of suspected terrorists
    - 3,276 persons

3
A bad start 2
  • Five techniques to gain information
  • (a) wall-standing forcing the detainees to
    remain for periods of some hours in a "stress
    position", described by those who underwent it as
    being "spread eagled against the wall, with their
    fingers put high above the head against the wall,
    the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing
    them to stand on their toes with the weight of
    the body mainly on the fingers"
  • (b) hooding putting a black or navy coloured
    bag over the detainees heads and, at least
    initially, keeping it there all the time except
    during interrogation
  • (c) subjection to noise pending their
    interrogations, holding the detainees in a room
    where there was a continuous loud and hissing
    noise
  • (d) deprivation of sleep pending their
    interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep
  • (e) deprivation of food and drink subjecting
    the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay
    at the centre and pending interrogations.

4
A bad start 3
  • Complaint under Article 2 ECHR
  • Commission held that this was torture
  • The Court held
  • Although the five techniques, as applied in
    combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and
    degrading treatment, although their object was
    the extraction of confessions, the naming of
    others and/or information and although they were
    used systematically, they did not occasion
    suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty
    implied by the word torture as so understood.

5
A bad start 3
  • Complaint under Article 2 ECHR
  • Commission held that this was torture
  • The Court held
  • Although the five techniques, as applied in
    combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and
    degrading treatment, although their object was
    the extraction of confessions, the naming of
    others and/or information and although they were
    used systematically, they did not occasion
    suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty
    implied by the word torture as so understood.

6
CAT Reports
  • The UK government submitted its Fifth Periodic
    State Report to the CAT Committee in August 2011.
    It is anticipated that the examination will take
    place at the Committees 50th session, due to
    take place in Geneva in May 2013.
  • The committee sets a list of issues to be the
    focus of the examination at the session prior to
    it.
  • The 49th session is scheduled for 29 October to
    23 November 2012. In order to give the committee
    sufficient time to consider them, it requests
    that shadow reports and other communications be
    submitted at least two months prior to the
    session at which they will be considered.

7
CAT Reports
  • The fourth periodic report of the UK was due on
    6 January 2002 and was received on 6 November
    2003. Conclusions and recommendations of the
    Committee against Torture, 10 December 2004
  • Concerns
  • (i) article 15 of the CAT prohibits the use of
    evidence gained by torture wherever and by
    whomever obtained notwithstanding the UKs
    assurance, the UKs law has been interpreted to
    exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture
    only where the State partys officials were
    complicit and
  • (ii) article 2 of the CAT provides that no
    exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be
    invoked as a justification for torture the text
    of Section 134(4) of the CJA 1988 however
    provides for a defence of lawful authority,
    justification or excuse to a charge of official
    intentional infliction of severe pain or
    suffering, a defence which is not restricted by
    the Human Rights Act for conduct outside the
    State party, where the Human Rights Act does not
    apply moreover, the text of section 134(5) of
    the CJA provides for a defence for conduct that
    is permitted under foreign law, even if unlawful
    under the UKs law

8
CAT Reports Concerns
  • The fourth periodic report of the UK was due on
    6 January 2002 and was received on 6 November
    2003. Conclusions and recommendations of the
    Committee against Torture, 10 December 2004
  • Concerns
  • (i) article 15 of the CAT prohibits the use of
    evidence gained by torture wherever and by
    whomever obtained notwithstanding the UKs
    assurance, the UKs law has been interpreted to
    exclude the use of evidence extracted by torture
    only where the State partys officials were
    complicit and
  • (ii) article 2 of the CAT provides that no
    exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be
    invoked as a justification for torture the text
    of Section 134(4) of the CJA 1988 however
    provides for a defence of lawful authority,
    justification or excuse to a charge of official
    intentional infliction of severe pain or
    suffering, a defence which is not restricted by
    the Human Rights Act for conduct outside the
    State party, where the Human Rights Act does not
    apply moreover, the text of section 134(5) of
    the CJA provides for a defence for conduct that
    is permitted under foreign law, even if unlawful
    under the UKs law

9
CAT Reports Concerns 2
  • The UKs limited acceptance of the applicability
    of the CAT 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 UK in Afghanistan and Iraq the
    Committee observes that the CAT 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 UKs authorities
  • the UKs reported use of diplomatic assurances in
    the refoulement context in circumstances where
    its minimum standards for such assurances,
    including effective post return monitoring
    arrangements and appropriate due process
    guarantees followed, are not wholly clear and
    thus cannot be assessed for compatibility with
    article 3 of the Convention
  • the UKs resort to potentially indefinite
    detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and
    Security Act 2001 of foreign nationals suspected
    of involvement in international terrorism and the
    strict regime applied in Belmarsh prison

10
CAT Reports Concerns 3
  • the investigations carried out by the UK into a
    number of deaths by lethal force arising between
    the entry into force of the CAT in 1988 and the
    Human Rights Act in 2000 which have failed to
    fully meet its international obligations
  • reports of unsatisfactory conditions in the UKs
    detention facilities including substantial
    numbers of deaths in custody, inter-prisoner
    violence, overcrowding and continued use of
    slopping out sanitation facilities,
  • reports of unacceptable conditions for female
    detainees in the Hydebank Wood prison, including
    a lack of gender sensitive facilities, policies,
    guarding and medical aid, with male guards
    alleged to constitute 80 of guarding staff and
    incidents of inappropriate threats and incidents
    affecting female detainees

11
CPT Reports Concerns 1
  • 2009 - Report to the Government of the United
    Kingdom on the visit to the United Kingdom
    carried out by the European Committee for the
    Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
    Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 18 November to
    1 December 2008
  • the CPT is concerned to note that little or no
    action has been taken in respect of certain
    recommendations made in previous reports, in
    particular as regards the conditions of detention
    and the legal safeguards against ill-treatment of
    persons held under the Terrorism Act 2000, and
    overcrowding in prisons.
  • The CPTs delegation heard no allegations of
    physical ill-treatment of prisoners by staff at
    any of the three prisons visited.

12
CPT Reports Concerns 2
  • The delegation which carried out the 2008 visit
    found that the vast majority of prisoners at
    Manchester, Wandsworth and Woodhill Prisons were
    doubled up in cells of 8.5m² or smaller. The
    cells were equipped with a bunk bed, a table, two
    stools and a shelving unit, and nearly all cells
    possessed a television and a kettle. All cells
    had access to natural light and were adequately
    ventilated and heated.
  • However, there was no screening of the toilet and
    basin, placed between the bunk bed and the outer
    wall, in most of the cells visited in the three
    prisons.
  • From the information gathered during the visit,
    prisoners spend lengthy periods of time locked in
    their cells.

13
Private prisons
  • Prison Reform Trust March 2011
  • The decision by the Minister of Justice Kenneth
    Clarke to award the security firm G4S the
    contract to run the 1,400-place Birmingham
    prison, announced in the House of Commons, has
    reignited the debate about the role of the
    private sector in UK prisons.
  • The UK already has the most privatised prison
    system in Europe.
  • In England and Wales, nearly 10,000 prisoners
    (11.6 of the total prisoner population) are held
    in private prisons. This is a higher proportion
    than in the US, where the figure is around 9.
  • The privatisation of HMP Birmingham and the new
    private Featherstone 2 will take the total number
    of private prisons in England and Wales from 11
    to 13, holding up to 14 of the total prison
    population.
  • Private prison contracts in England and Wales are
    shared between just three companies Serco,
    Sodexo and G4S. Overall the costs of private
    prisons per place are higher than public prisons
    for most types of establishment. Despite this,
    the average ratio of prison staff to prisoners is
    usually lower in private prisons, and staff
    generally receive a lower level of basic pay than
    their public sector colleagues.

14
The only UK conviction for torture
  • On 18 July 2005 the Afghan warlord Faryadi Sarwar
    Zardad (41) was found guilty in the London
    Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) of conspiring
    to torture and take hostages in Afghanistan in
    the 1990s.
  • The following day he was sentenced to twenty
    years imprisonment.
  • His appeal was denied on 7 Feb 2007
  • Judgment dismissed the defence submission that
    Zardad was not a public official or a person
    acting in an official capacity" in terms of
    Section 134 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  • Although Zardad was not a de jure public
    official, he was to be treated as a public
    official on a de facto basis.
  • Judge examined a considerable amount of
    international material to reach his decision,
    namely the UN CAT decisions in Elmi v Australia
    and HMHI v Australia, as well as the ITCY case of
    Furundzija and the USA case of Kadic v Karadzic.

15
Inquiry into UK role in rendition and torture
  • 6 July 2010 - announcement by Prime Minister
    David Cameron of an inquiry into allegations of
    UK involvement in the mistreatment of detainees
    held abroad
  • Redress and other NGOs criticise as too weak
  • 18 January 2012 - inquiry into the UK's alleged
    role in the torture and rendition of detainees
    after the 9/11 attacks, already boycotted by most
    human rights groups, abandoned by the government.
  • Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said "We
    welcome the sensible decision to end the
    embarrassment of a so-called inquiry in which
    neither torture victims nor human rights
    campaigners had faith."

16
Redress comment on draft UK Fifth Report
  • Para 12 of the draft report states the UK must
    be prepared at all times to judge itself
    against the highest international standards
    and to work hard to embed respect for
    international law and respect for human rights
  • Why has the UK made no declaration under Art 22
    of CAT to allow complaints?
  • What are the police and Crown Prosecution Service
    doing to bring more prosecutions, and why there
    has only been one UK prosecution in the more than
    twenty years since torture was made a crime in
    the UK?
  • Why does the UK continue to consider that the
    UNCAT does not apply extra-territorially
    this is contradictory in both law and
    principle, when the UKs highest court found in
    Al Skeini that article 3 of the ECHR does have
    extra-territorial application to detainees held
    in custody by UK personnel anywhere abroad.
About PowerShow.com