|
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1845. By letter dated 30 November 2004, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received allegations concerning:
1846. Walik Bashir Youssef al-Sa’di, aged 19, al-Jaza’ir, Basra. On 9 April 2003 he was arrested near the al-Marbed Hotel, hooded, and taken by United Kingdom soldiers to the military holding centre at the Corniche, There he was beaten with the butt of a rifle on his back, side and nose. He sustained bruising and a broken nose. He was transferred the next day to the al-Rumaila base. A Kuwaiti interpreter threatened him with electric shocks and further beatings if he did not confess to being a member of the Fedayeen or Ba’ath Party. He was taken to a field hospital for his earlier injuries and given painkillers. He was later transferred to Camp Bucca.
1847. Shakir Qassim al-Sai’d, a 30-year-old taxi driver from Basra. On 10 April 2003, he was arrested by United Kingdom soldiers. He was hit on the mouth, resulting in a broken tooth. As he lay on the ground he was kicked and beaten with rifles by five soldiers for 10 minutes. He was taken to the South Club in al-Tahsiniya, al-Saymar. He was hooded and kicked throughout the night. He was beaten when he requested water. The next day he was examined by United Kingdom military doctors and remained at the military hospital for four days before being moved to Um Qasr. He was released shortly thereafter.
1848. By letter dated 30 November 2004, sent jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur notified the Government that he had received allegations concerning:
1849. A. J. K., aged 16, and Iyyad Salem Hannoun. On 8 May 2003, they were arrested together with two other persons by five United Kingdom soldiers in Sa’ad Square, Basra, and taken to al-Jumhuri hospital. For one hour they were kicked and punched by the soldiers, after which they were taken to the Zubair bridge. They were stripped to their underwear and ordered at gunpoint to swim across the river. While two of them managed to cross the river and flee, A. J. K. and Iyyad Salem Hannoun struggled because they could not swim. A. J. K. drowned and Iyyad Salem Hannoun swam back. A. J. K.’s brother lodged a complaint at a police station on 9 May, where he was reportedly told by United Kingdom officials that they did not believe him. His father took A. J. K.’s body to the station the following day after it had been recovered from the river. An autopsy was reportedly carried out in late June 2003.
1850. Baha Dawood Salem al-Maliki, aged 26; Kifah Taha Moussa, aged 45; Baha Shehab, aged 45; Dhaher ‘Abdallah ‘Ali, aged 60; Mohand Dhaher ‘Ali, aged 18; Jawad Kadhem, aged 35; Radeef Taha Muslim, aged 29, and Sattar, all employees of the Ibn al- Haythem Hotel, Basra. On 14 September 2003, they were arrested by members of the Queen’s Lancanshire Regiment, who were searching for weapons in the hotel. Baha Dawood Salem was kicked and punched several times. The hotel staff were forced to sit on the floor of the ground floor bathroom and were kicked by soldiers. Jawad Kadhem was forced to sit on a Turkish toilet while a soldier flushed it on him. They were taken away to Camp Steven in al- Hakimya. At the camp they were forced to stand with their backs against a wall, arms outstretched and feet away from the wall. They were kicked about their bodies, including on the abdomen and chest. After several hours the men were allowed to sit down against the wall with their arms outstretched. They were kicked whenever their arms dropped. Water was poured over Kifah Taha Moussa when he fainted. One soldier forced him to smell a cotton ball soaked with petrol while he held a lit lighter in the other hand. The hotel staff were given names of football players and were threatened with beatings if they did not remember the names. Jawad Kadhem was forced to lie on the ground with soldiers sitting on his back. Later another soldier forced them to dance. About two days later, they were transferred to Camp Bucca. Kifah Taha Moussa was taken first to the camp medical centre and then by helicopter to the military hospital in al-Shu’aiba prison near Zubair for further treatment. He was kept there until 19 November and released without charge. A medical report from the military hospital, dated 17 September 2003, stated that he was suffering from kidney failure, and appeared to have been assaulted as there was bruising to his abdomen, chest, left forearm and left thigh. Radeef Taha Muslim received treatment there for his injuries and remained there for one week. Mohand Dhaher ‘Ali, Sattar and Baha Shehab were released on 31 October 2003. Jawad Kadhem was released in November 2003. Baha Dawood Salem died in custody on 17 September. When his father went to the military hospital in al-Shu’aiba, he observed that Baha Dawood Salem’s nose was broken and the skin on his forehead was torn away. Bruising was visible on his chest, abdomen and legs. The death certificate of 21 September indicated that the cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest and asphyxia. Compensation for $3,000, was reportedly accepted by the family, however a further $5,000 payment without an admission of guilt was declined. No further information on investigations into the treatment of the above-mentioned persons is available.
1851. ‘Abd al-Jabbar Moussa ‘Ali, aged 53, and his son Bashar, al-Jumhuriya, Basra. On 13 May 2003, they were kicked and beaten by United Kingdom soldiers stationed at the al-Jubaila base, who searched their home for weapons. They were blindfolded and taken to the base, where plastic sacks were put over their heads and they were repeatedly punched and kicked. Bashar was taken to a military base in al-Hakmiya and transferred the next day to Um Qasr. On 14 and 15 May, officials at the base denied any knowledge when a relative went there enquiring about the whereabouts of the two men. On 16 May, the third attempt to obtain information, the family was informed that ‘Abd al-Jabbar Moussa ‘Ali had died hours after his arrest. The death certificate issued by the Teaching Hospital indicated that the death was caused by a “sudden stopping of the heart”, but it was reported that injuries were visible on the arms, legs and chest. Bashar was released a few days later. An investigation was reportedly discontinued after the family denied a request for an autopsy on religious grounds.
Urgent appeals
1852. On 11 June 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, regarding Nilu Kirat, a 24-year-old Nepalese citizen from Khotang District. According to the allegations received, she is at risk of immediate deportation from the United Kingdom to Nepal, where she would be at risk of detention, torture and other forms of ill-treatment, on grounds of her political opinion and activities as a human rights defender, and particularly because of her involvement with the Maoists. She has been subjected to death threats in Nepal, and was the victim of ill-treatment, including sexual assault by Nepalese police. She is detained at Heathrow Airport.
1853. By letter dated 16 July 2004, the Government informed that the United Kingdom has in place well-established procedures for the assessment of applications involving asylum and human rights issues. The decision to detain Nilu Kirat on 8 June 2004 was not arbitrary and was made in the belief that she would be removed on 9 June 2004. These arrangements were cancelled following representations to the Special Rapporteurs and submission of a further application to remain in the United Kingdom. Once it became clear there was no immediate prospect of removing Nilu Kirat she was released from detention on 17 June. The Government has carefully considered Nilu Kirat’s case in the light of its domestic and international obligations, including the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but it has concluded that she does not face persecution or a real risk of detention, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or other forms of mistreatment, on account of her political opinion on return to Nepal. There is no evidence that Nilu Kirat has been subjected to persecution on account of her gender. The only incident she has raised is the assault by the police and this was not believed by an independent ajudicator to have occurred. She has not raised any concerns about discrimination on account of her gender but in any event the risk of such discrimination does not give her a right to remain in the United Kingdom if it does not amount to persecution of inhuman and degrading treatment and there is no evidence that she faces discrimination which reaches this threshold. Since the initial decision to refuse her asylum was taken, Nilu Kirat has made full use of the avenues available to challenge this decision, and has had legal representation throughout. The independent Immigration Adjudicator did not find her to be a credible witness and simply did not believe her claims were true. Her case was then examined by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights, none of which found any reason to re-open the matter. She has therefore exercised her right to fair proceedings before an independent and impartial tribunal. She has made an application to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a relationship to a settled person and no action to remove her will be taken until this application is resolved.
1854. On 2 August 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, concerning E. D., a 45-year-old Algerian national. According to the allegations received, he is at risk of imminent forcible return to Algeria, following the rejection of his application for asylum in the United Kingdom. E. D., living in the United Kingdom since 1998, was a former member of the banned Islamic Salvation Front. He is a political opposition activist, as well as a member of the human rights organizations Algerian League for the Defence of Human Rights, Algeria Watch, Collective of Families of Missing Persons in Algeria, as well as a contributor to the website InvestigAction.com. Prior to his departure from Algeria, he was arrested for his involvement in student protests in 1978, 1988 and in May 1991, for which he was ill-treated in detention. Eighteen members and friends of his family were victims of a massacre in 1997.
1855. By letter dated 14 September 2004, the Government informed that it has in place well-established procedures for the assessment of applications involving asylum and human rights issues. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) refused E. D.’s application for asylum on 12 June 2001 and an independent adjudicator dismissed his subsequent appeal on 3 May 2002. On 7 August 2003 his appeal was remitted to be heard afresh by another independent adjudicator, which was subsequently dismissed on 10 November 2003. He was refused permission to appeal this decision to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal on 22 April 2004, and then applied for Statutory Review. This application was dismissed on 15 June by the Court of Appeal. E. D. has now exhausted his appeal rights and has no legal basis of stay in the United Kingdom. His case has been carefully considered in the light of the domestic and international obligations of the United Kingdom, including the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It has been concluded that he does not face persecution or a real risk of detention, torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or other forms of mistreatment on account of any past history if he were to be returned. There is not sufficiently compelling or compassionate reasons for IND to reverse the decision to refuse E. D. asylum or to let him remain in the United Kingdom exceptionally.
Observations
1856. The Special Rapporteur considers it appropriate to draw attention to the concerns
expressed by the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/CR/33/3, para. 4), in particular: the
interpretation that the inadmissibility of evidence gained by torture only applies to situations
where the State party’s officials were complicit; the text of section 134(4) of the Criminal
Justice Act, which 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, and the text of section
134(5) of the Criminal Justice Act, which provides for a defence for conduct that is permitted
under foreign law, even if unlawful under the State party’s law; the limited acceptance of the
applicability of the Convention to the actions of its forces abroad (i.e. United Kingdom forces
in Afghanistan and Iraq); the 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; and the 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.
Back to Contents
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
This report has been published by Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights on July 27, 2005.