Cebo.org is a collegial approach to information sharing between ethics-based
organizations with NGO status at the United Nations. Please contact member parties regarding the
positions of their respective organizations on matters expressed in this online journal.
May 21, 2006
Posted 3:33 PM
by Mary
U.N. Torture Committee Critical of U.S. GENEVA - May 19 - The United Nations Committee against Torture today issued a strong and thorough critique of the U.S. record on torture. Human Rights Watch urged the United States to adopt the committee’s recommendations. Of note, the committee called upon the United States to close all secret prisons, hold accountable senior military and civilian officials who authorized, acquiesced or consented to acts of torture committed by their subordinates, and end its practice of transferring detainees to countries with known torture records. The committee also criticized the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and called for its closure. The committee rejected U.S. claims that the Convention against Torture did not apply to U.S. personnel acting outside of the United States or during wartime. "The Committee against Torture repudiated every argument made by the Bush administration to justify its controversial detention and interrogation policies,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Washington should seize this opportunity to end these illegal practices and regain the moral high ground in its fight against terrorism.” The committee also criticized practices that were the subject of its last review in 2000, including the practice in the United States of housing children in adult jails and prisons, and the prolonged isolation of prisoners housed in so-called “supermax” prisons. The committee expressed concern that executions by lethal injection could be accompanied by severe pain and suffering. The committee asked the United States to report in one year on compliance with a number of its recommendations, including its recommendation that the U.S. close Guantanamo Bay, register detainees captured in the fight against terrorism, and end its practice of reliance on “diplomatic assurances” – unmonitored and unenforced promises from a government – to transfer individuals to countries with known records of torture. The Committee against Torture is an international body of experts that monitors state compliance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Conclusions and Recommendations issued on May 19, 2006 were in consideration of the second periodic report of the United States to the committee. Human Rights Watch urges the United States to seriously review the committee’s Conclusions and Recommendations and promptly institute the changes in policy and practice recommended by the committee.
May 19, 2006
Posted 8:44 AM
by Mary
US 'must end secret detentions' The US should close any secret "war on terror" detention facilities abroad and the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, a United Nations report has said. The UN Committee against Torture urged the US to ensure no one was detained in any secret facility. The report followed the first US appearance before the committee since the 11 September 2001 attacks. During the hearing in early May, the US neither confirmed or denied the existence of secret prisons. UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE The US has been holding hundreds of terror suspects arrested since 11 September at facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. It has been accused of operating secret prisons and transporting some detainees to states which use torture. The committee also recommended in its 11-page report that the US should: * Register all those it detains in territories under its jurisdiction * Eradicate torture and ill-treatment of detainees * Not send suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture * Enact a federal crime of torture * Broaden the definition of acts of psychological torture 'Investigate and disclose' The committee said it recognised that the 11 September attacks had caused "profound suffering" to the US and welcomed the US statement that officials from all government agencies were prohibited from engaging in torture at all times. But it told the US its no-comment policy on the secret facilities was "regrettable" and asked for more information. The definitions and legal limits of the structures and the practices the US has followed are all being tested - and in many cases found wanting Paul Reynolds, BBC News website "The state party should investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority under which they have been established and the manner in which detainees are treated," the report said. Detaining people in such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture, it said. It also called on the US to end detentions at the Guantanamo Bay camp and close it, releasing detainees or giving them access to a judicial process. It called for "immediate measures" to eradicate torture and ill-treatment of detainees by US military personnel "in any territory under its jurisdiction". It called for an end to interrogation techniques it said constituted torture, such as the use of dogs to scare detainees or sexual humiliation, which the Abu Ghraib prison scandal brought to light. 'Take heed' The recommendations are not binding but the BBC's Imogen Foulkes says the committee's conclusions will not make comfortable reading for the US, with the assertion that secret camps do constitute torture. The US has maintained that it is engaged in a long term war on terror and that some aspects of the convention on torture may not apply. But the UN committee rejected this, our correspondent says, saying the total ban on torture applies in time of peace, war or armed conflict and anyone violating the convention should be prosecuted. Human rights groups welcomed the report. "We hope that the United States will take heed of this report and really begin to rethink and change its policies on a number of practices, including secret prisons, lack of accountability for abuse, and transfer of prisoners to places where they may be tortured," Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch told Reuters news agency. The committee has asked the US to respond within a year to its recommendations. BBC
May 5, 2006
Posted 9:25 PM
by Mary
The U.S. launched a defense of its policy on human rights today at a hearing meant to evaluate American compliance with the U.N. Convention Against Torture. It marked the first time in six years that the U.S. has appeared before the U.N. panel. The panelists grilled the U.S. delegation on Guantanamo, the U.S. definition of torture, and more. In its written report to the committee, the U.S. delegation made the following statement: "The US government does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture, or other unlawful practices, by its personnel or employees under any circumstances," It is against that blunt denial of abuse that the committee is examining U.S. compliance with its international obligations. The committee is examining what one U.N. official called "the longest list of issues I have ever seen." Despite being pounded with report after report of detainee abuse, the U.S. delegation stuck to its blanket denial, repeatedly dismissing allegations of torture as "absurd." John B. Bellinger III, the legal adviser to the State Department, who led the delegation, said that criticism of United States policy has become "so hyperbolic as to be absurd." He added: "I would ask you not to believe every allegation that you have heard." And here is Bellinger on extraordinary rendition (which is sending prisoners to countries where they are likely to be tortured): Investigators for the European Parliament said last month that they had evidence the C.I.A. had flown 1,000 undeclared flights over Europe since 2001, in some cases transporting terrorism suspects kidnapped within the European Union to countries using torture. The practice is known as "rendition." Mr. Bellinger said it was an "absurd insinuation" that all of these planes carried terrorism suspects. But the panel wouldn't let Bellinger dismiss their concerns as "absurd"; rather, they pointed out the inconsistency of the U.S. position: In cases where the American government has sent prisoners to countries with poor rights records -- a policy the administration defends, saying it helps to get dangerous individuals out of the United States -- it seeks assurances they will not be tortured, Mr. Bellinger added. The panel was dubious. "The very fact that you are asking for diplomatic assurances means you are in doubt," said the committee's chairman, Andreas Mavrommatis. The environment may have been new, but the tactics were the same. Whether in front of a U.N. body or Congress itself, these officials shrugged off reports of torture as "isolated incidents." They were tight-lipped on issues from secret CIA prisons to rendition, claiming that such intelligence matters were classified. But in a rare moment of admission, the delegation admitted that they had documented 29 detainee deaths resulting from torture. US Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Barry Lowenkron claimed that more than 600 incidents of abuse were investigated, and that 250 people have been held accountable for abusing detainees. There have been a handful of torturers who have received prison terms for their actions: Charles Graner was sentenced to 10 years, Ivan Fredrick was sentenced to 8 years, and Lyndie England was sentenced to 3 years in prison. In other cases, detainee abuse was met with reprimands. Of course, those who established our dangerous policy relating to torture have skirted any responsibility, choosing instead to employ the "few bad apples" defense. Those who told interrogators that anything short of organ failure or death was fair game have yet to be held accountable for establishing a policy that violated both the letter and spirit of the Convention Against Torture. The panel, headed up by Andreas Mavrommatis from Cyprus, is set to receive written answers from the U.S. delegation, and it will release a report on its findings about U.S. compliance with the Convention Against Torture by May 19th.
May 3, 2006
Posted 6:50 PM
by Mary
Amnesty: Torture "Widespread" in US Custody By Richard Waddington Reuters Wednesday 03 May 2006 Human rights group says US "creating climate" in which abuse can flourish. Geneva - Torture and inhumane treatment are "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba and elsewhere despite Washington's denials, Amnesty International said on Wednesday. In a report for the United Nations' Committee against Torture, the London-based human rights group also alleged abuses within the U.S. domestic law enforcement system, including use of excessive force by police and degrading conditions of isolation for inmates in high security prisons. "Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody," Amnesty said in its 47-page report. It said that while Washington has sought to blame abuses that have recently come to light on "aberrant soldiers and lack of oversight", much ill-treatment stemmed from officially sanctioned interrogation procedures and techniques. "The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish," said Amnesty International USA Senior Deputy Director-General Curt Goering. The U.N. committee, whose experts carry out periodic reviews of countries signatory to the U.N. Convention against Torture, is scheduled to begin consideration of the United States on Friday. The last U.S. review was in 2000. It said in November it was seeking U.S. answers to questions including whether Washington operated secret detention centers abroad and whether President George W. Bush had the power to absolve anyone from criminal responsibility in torture cases. The committee also wanted to know whether a December 2004 memorandum from the U.S. Attorney General's office, reserving torture for "extreme" acts of cruelty, was compatible with the global convention barring all forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. In its own submission to the committee, published late last year, Washington justified the holding of thousands of foreign terrorism suspects in detention centers abroad, including Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, on the grounds that it was fighting a war that was still not over. "Like other wars, when they start, we do not know when they will end. Still, we may detain combatants until the end of the war," it said. The U.S. human rights image has taken a battering abroad over a string of scandals involving the sexual and physical abuse of detainees held by American forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. In its submission, Washington did not mention alleged secret detention centers. Amnesty listed a series of incidents in recent years involving torture of detainees in U.S. custody, noting the heaviest sentence given to perpetrators was five months in jail. This was the same punishment you could get for stealing a bicycle in the United States, it added. "Although the U.S. government continues to assert its condemnation of torture and ill-treatment, these statements contradict what is happening in practice," said Goering, referring to the testimony of torture victims in the report.
May 2, 2006
Posted 9:08 PM
by Mary
Security Council Protection of Civilians Resolution “reaffirms” R2P Background The protection of civilians agenda is a framework for the UN’s diplomatic, legal, humanitarian, and human rights activities directed at the protection of populations during armed conflict. The Security Council has included the protection of civilians as a thematic issue on its agenda since 1999, with a particular focus on the duties of states and the role of the Security Council in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations including refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), women and children. Building on Resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000) on the protection of civilians, and related resolutions on children and armed conflict and on women, peace and security, the resolution includes the following important elements: · Demands compliance with international humanitarian, human rights and refugee laws and calls on states that have not already done so to ratify these instruments; · Reaffirms practice of ensuring that mandates of peacekeeping and political missions include provisions regarding protect civilians, humanitarian assistance, creation of conditions for return of refugees and IDPs; expresses intent to ensure that these mandates include clear guidelines and that these issues are given priority in decisions about resources and funding; · Calls for consideration of the special needs of women and children in all peace processes, peace agreements and post-conflict recovery; · Emphasizes responsibility to end impunity and draws attention to the range of mechanisms to be considered toward that end, including “international and ‘mixed’ criminal courts”; · Underscores the importance of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants (DDR) – including the availability of appropriate resources - in UN missions and peace agreements; · Condemns sexual exploitation with specific condemnation of acts of sexual exploitation by those involved in UN operations; · In noting that deliberate targeting of civilians and commission of systematic violations of humanitarian and human rights law may constitute threat to international peace and security, reaffirms readiness to consider “adopt[ing] appropriate steps” in response to such situations. The protection of civilians agenda is directed at ensuring that all parties “understand how their responsibilities for the protection of civilians should be translated into action” (as described by the Secretary-General in his 28 November 2005 report). In this context, the World Summit endorsement of a responsibility to protect populations against genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing was a major development for the Security Council to consider. Inclusion of R2P in this resolution received considerable governmental support, as evidenced by the Security Council open debate on 9 December 2005 at UN HQ in New York. Twenty-one governments spoke in favor of R2P and its inclusion in the protection of civilians resolution. Excerpts are available at www.responsibilitytoprotect.org. The resolution on the protection of civilians was expected to pass in December 2005, but reference to R2P was among the major points of disagreement among member states that stalled negotiations. Some Security Council members expressed opposition to any further codification of a responsibility to protect, seeking to undo or at least restrict the achievements of the Summit in this area. Others wanted the Security Council to refrain from discussing R2P prior to the consideration of these concepts in the General Assembly. As a result, the final resolution language on R2P is weaker than that which was in the November 2005 draft where the Security Council: underlines the importance of its provisions regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, including in this regard the responsibilities of individual Members States as well as the international community acting through the Untied Nations, including the Security Council. Impact of R2P Reference by the Security Council In the World Summit Outcome document, world leaders pledged that the international community, acting through the Security Council “was prepared to take collective action” in a timely and decisive manner” when states are “manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” This development was welcomed as one of the most significant achievements in the Summit; it was a political commitment that could be used to hold the international community accountable if a population was threatened by genocide or similar large-scale atrocities. With a reaffirmation of this provision in Resolution 1674, the Security Council itself accepts the commitment made at the September Summit and further codifies R2P principles into the UN system: according to the UN Charter, all UN member states are obligated to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. Neither the resolution nor the Summit Outcome Document, however, automatically ensure that timely action will be taken by the Security Council. The World Summit Outcome language leaves to Security Council the discretion as to when it might act (“on a case by case basis”). For millions of civilians suffering or at risk of violence as a result of armed conflict, Security Council action has come too late, if at all. The Security Council must work to fulfill this commitment by responding earlier to warning signals using a range of measures commensurate with the seriousness of the threat to populations. This responsibility must be a political priority for member states as they deliberate on next steps for Darfur and future crises. Reform of Security Council working methods – for example, an agreement by permanent Council members to refrain from use of the veto in instances of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing – is also imperative. Civil society organizations must play a key role in ensuring that this responsibility – accepted first by world leaders and now by the Security Council – is respected. For further analysis of the debate in the Security Council, visit the Security Council Report website at www.securitycouncilreport.org. For a timeline of UN activities on the protection of civilians agenda, visit the OCHA website ochaonline.un.org. The resolution is available at un.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"War does not determine who is right--only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
| 
