NEWSLETTER Volume 1, Issue 2
Preventing Torture Framing the Issue
July 2007
within the fight against terrorism Inside this issue: Fighting Torture with
Fighting Torture with Faith
Faith
An interview with Reverend Richard Killmer, Executive Director National Religious Campaign Against Torture (US)
France: More Safeguards
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is a membership organisation of religious organisations working together to end U.S.sponsored actions that violate international and national law prohibiting torture. Although opposed to torture and cruel and inhuman practices by anyone, for any purpose, NRCAT believes that the U.S. religious community has a special moral and theological responsibility to lead the effort for an end to all torture utilised and condoned by the United States government today in connection to the “war on terrorism”. IRCT: Rev. Killmer, tell us a little about how the NRCAT came into existence. Was there a specific “breaking point” that persuaded you that you had to do something? The United States historically has been a leader in outlawing torture and cruel and inhuman practices. The ever-increasing evidence, however, makes it all too clear that the grim abuses in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and secret prisons around the world, and the use of extraordinary rendition of individuals for interrogation to countries that practice torture, are not isolated incidents, but rather
constitute a widespread pattern. Dr. George Hunsinger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, led a religious conference on U.S.sponsored torture on January 13-15, 2006 in Princeton, New Jersey. During that conference, attended by approximately 150 persons, including leaders of a variety of faiths, NRCAT was launched. The Churches’ Center for Theology and Public Policy (CCTPP), a national ecumenical research centre located in Washington, D.C., and the Peace Action Education Fund of Princeton, NJ, helped plan the conference and create NRCAT, and served as its fiscal agent until June 18, 2007. NRCAT is a growing membership organisation, currently consisting of over 125 national, regional, and local religious organisations, with adjunct (non-voting) membership available for secular human rights organisations. The goals of NRCAT are: 1) Bring about changes in U.S. policy to prohibit – without exception – all U.S.sponsored torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. 2) Expand the moral consensus among the American people that torture is never acceptable. 3) Encourage and enable national denomina-
tions, faith groups, national and regional religious organisations, congregations, and individual people of faith to engage actively in efforts to end U.S.sponsored torture including educating the public about torture and detainee treatment and urging the public to end U.S.-sponsored torture. NRCAT is comprised of organisations representing Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. How were you able to get such a diverse membership from varying faith traditions to sign onto your campaign? We have strong interfaith participation because various religious organisations care deeply about the issue. There really are not any organisations that we could not get on board. The reason that some religious organisations are not yet on board is because we ran out of time to approach them. As we move forward, we expect an even larger diversity of religious organisations. In your opinion, what effects has the so-called “war on terrorism” had on the American public’s perception of torture? The effects of the “war on terrorism” have been significant. There are too many Americans who believe that torture may be an effective
Needed against Return to Torture
1
2
Update: Acquittal for Mauritanian “Islamists”
3
Recommended Reading
4
and necessary tool in diminishing the danger of terrorism. What has been the reaction to the NRCAT campaign “Torture is a moral issue”? NRCAT’s Statement of Conscience “Torture is a Moral Issue” has been a very helpful vehicle for U.S. people of faith to express their commitment to end U.S.sponsored torture. There are more than 17,500 endorsers, including 24 heads of denominations and faith groups. It began with the text of a New York Times ad in June 2006 that was signed by 28 people, including Elie Weisel and former President Jimmy Carter. Constitutionally the U.S. is a secular nation, and some argue that matters of faith should remain outside of the realm of politics. In your opinion, what role does or should the question of faith play in a politically charged debate such as that on torture and terrorism? The first amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. does prohibit religious organisations from controlling the
Volume 1, Issue 2
Page 2
Fighting Torture with Faith (cont.) U.S. government and the U.S. government from controlling religious organisations. It does not prohibit people of faith or religious institutions from advocating for changes in policies that are based in their religious faith. The religious community brings moral authority to any issue. It is imperative that this moral authority be applied to the issue of torture.
What lessons can NRCAT offer to other countries or organisations struggling to uphold the prohibition against torture? I guess my first suggestion to anyone interested in creating a NRCAT in other countries is to work hard to obtain the institutional commitment of the religious organisations. Torture is at the very heart of religious convictions and needs the deepest and broadest
commitment of the religious community. What is your response to the often used argument that torture can be justified if it saves innocent lives? First, there are some behaviours that are always immoral. Torture, which degrades human beings, is one of them. Second, torture is a notoriously ineffective method for obtaining infor-
mation. If a nation wanted to obtain accurate information from a detainee, it would be much more useful to befriend the person and not harm them. Finally, it is extremely hypothetical to think that a ticking time bomb would ever exist that could be disarmed by information obtained from a detainee. There is very little chance that would ever happen.
For more information, visit www.nrcat.org
France: More Safeguards Needed against Return to Torture by Judith Sunderland, Human Rights Watch
On August 7, 2006, three French gendarmes marched Adel Tebourski, handcuffed and shackled, onto a plane bound for Tunis. Two weeks earlier, the dual FrenchTunisian national had been looking forward to resuming a normal life after completing a six-year prison term for a terrorism-related conviction. Instead, on the eve of his release from prison, French authorities stripped him of his acquired French citizenship and the Interior Minister ordered his urgent expulsion. Tebourski was expelled to Tunis before his appeal against return to risk of torture had been fully examined, and despite a request for interim measures by the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT). Tebourski is one of dozens of terrorism suspects France has returned to their countries of nationality since 2001. Though not a new policy, national security removals now form an integral part of France’s preventive approach to terrorism, specifically its strategy to counter violent radicalization and recruitment. In-
deed, France has earned international headlines—and praise from some quarters— for the expulsion of Muslim religious leaders (imams), whom the government describes as “hate preachers,” and others deemed to foment extremism. France has a duty to protect its population from terrorist attacks and has the right to remove foreigners who pose a threat to national security. But it also has an absolute obligation under international law to ensure that it never sends anyone to a country where she or he faces the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The procedures currently in place in France do not meet this obligation. A key obstacle to ensuring that no one is expelled to a country where a risk of torture exists is that appeals against removals, as well as those against the orders designating the country of return, do not automatically suspend the expulsion or deportation. So even when an individual files an urgent appeal to a special judge (juge des référés, or interim relief judge) based on fear of
torture or ill-treatment upon return, authorities may carry out the removal before the judge has made a ruling. The fact that in practice authorities can wait until the interim relief judge has ruled on the urgent appeal is no substitute for a procedural guarantee written into the law. There are two main ways for France to remove individuals considered to pose a threat to national security. First, the courts can impose deportation orders as part of the punishment for those convicted of a terrorismrelated offense. In these cases, the individual is deported from France after serving the time in prison and banned from returning either for a fixed period (from 3 to 10 years) or permanently. Second, the Interior Ministry can order an expulsion based on intelligence reports identifying an individual as a threat to national security. At least fifteen men described by authorities as imams have been expelled since 2001, many on the grounds that they preached ideas that advocated extremism and contributed to radicalization.
More information about French cases of expulsion of terror suspects can be found in the Human Rights Watch report In the Name of Prevention: Inefficient Safeguards in National Security Removals.
Criminal deportations and administrative expulsions both require authorities to adopt a separate order that designates the country of return. Those who fear torture or illtreatment on return can petition for the protection of fundamental liberties (référé-liberté ). The petition is separate from any appeal on the merits against an expulsion or deportation order. An interim relief judge must make a ruling within 48 hours, and a negative decision may be appealed to the highest administrative
Volume 1, Issue 2 court in France, Council of State (Conseil d’Etat ). But while the authorities generally suspend removal while the interim relief judge considers the case, they are not obliged to do so. Individuals subject to deportation or expulsion may also file for asylum, but again the procedural safeguards against return to persecution are insufficient. Applications for asylum where the person is subject to removal on national security grounds are determined by the government’s national office for refugees (Office Français de
Protection des Réfugiés et Apatrides, OFPRA) under an expedited procedure. Under this procedure, the office must render a decision within 15 days, or within 96 hours if the person is detained. Removal is suspended only while OFPRA considers the application. Those whose claims are rejected can be removed before their appeals are considered by the independent Refugee Appeals Board (Commission des Recours des Réfugiés). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Court for Human Rights have consistently argued that states must provide for automatically suspensive appeals in removal cases where fear of persecution is raised. The
Page 3 European Court condemned France in April 2007 in the case of Asebeha Gebremedhin, an Eritrean asylum seeker, because none of the appeals against a refusal to allow him entry into France to apply for asylum had suspensive effect. The CAT has condemned France twice since 2002 for deporting individuals who raised fear of torture on return before their appeals had been fully examined (in Tebourski’s case and that of an Algerian man, Mahfoud Brada). In both cases, France ignored CAT requests for interim measures while the committee considered the claims. Many European Union governments see the expulsion of foreigners suspected of extremism as a means of countering radicalization and terrorist recruitment. In a meeting in Venice in May 2007, the interior ministers of the G-6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom) called expulsions “an effective tool…for States…to protect their people from foreign nationals that are believed to pose a threat to national security” and called for a study of existing mechanisms and best practices.1 Any effort towards a common European approach must be based on a better model than current French
law and policy, and be firmly grounded in international human rights law. Procedures for national security removals must provide for suspensive appeals, particularly in cases where there is a risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return. Individuals subject to removal must have a meaningful opportunity to contest the charges against them, and the right to stay in the country until a final decision has been made on any appeal or petition for asylum. Finally, alternatives to removal should be available where removal would expose an individual to the risk of torture or ill-treatment, or where it would interfere disproportionately with other fundamental human rights. In the case of long-term residents, this includes the right to family and private life. France already has an alternative to forced removal on national security grounds: compulsory residence. In cases where an individual cannot be deported or expelled, the Interior Ministry can order him or her to live in a particular place, report to the police periodically, and require prior permission to travel outside the area. With better procedural safeguards – it should be a court, not an executive power, that decides – and the possibility for less
restrictive conditions where the risk to national security lessens over time, compulsory residence could constitute an appropriate alternative to removal when doing so would violate fundamental human rights. Two months after Adel Tebourski was expelled, the French Refugee Appeals Board acknowledged that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Tunisia and should not have been returned to that country. Tebourski was fortunate – despite the clear risk, he was not arrested upon arrival or subjected to torture or ill-treatment. But protection against torture and illtreatment cannot be left to chance. Effective procedural safeguards are required. 1
Conclusions of the G-6 Meetings in Venice, Italy, 11-12 May 2007, Available from: http:// www.statewatch.org/ news/2007/may/05venice-g7may-2007.htm (accessed June 15, 2007).
Judith Sunderland is the author of the new Human Rights Watch report on France, In the Name of Prevention: Insufficient Safeguards in National Security Removals, available at: http://hrw.org/ reports/2007/france0607/
Update: Acquittal for Mauritanian “Islamists”
In the May issue of this newsletter, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) wrote that a factfinding mission to Mauritania concluded that many socalled “Islamists” detained as terror suspects were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and acts of torture during police custody.
The trial of 25 of these “Islamists” began in Nouakchott on 21 May. On the opening day, FIDH and its member organisation, the Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme (AMDH), reiterated that any testimony proven to have been obtained under torture should not be used in the proceedings, in accordance with Article 15 of the UN Con-
vention against Torture. Both organisations also stressed that torture is prohibited under any circumstance, including within the framework of fighting terrorism. On 5 June, the court acquitted 24 of the 25 defendants after ruling that their testimonies were inadmissible since they were obtained under torture. A final defen-
dant, who had escaped from detention and was tried in absentia, was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. FIDH and AMDH now urge the legal authorities to open an investigation into the acts of torture denounced by the court and to pursue the perpetrators.
Volume 1, Issue 2
Page 4
International Rehabilitation Council
For more information...
for Torture Victims (IRCT) Borgergade 13 · P.O. Box 9049
The “Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism” newsletter is published bimonthly as part of a joint FIDH-IRCT project aimed at reinstating respect for the prohibition against torture in counterterrorism strategies both globally and in ten target countries: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritania, the Philippines, Russia and Syria.
1022 Copenhagen K DENMARK Phone: +45 33 76 06 00 Fax: +45 33 76 05 00 Email: irct@irct.org www.irct.org
The newsletter editors welcome submissions of content for future issues, including articles (send query first), comments, letters to the editor (up to 250 words) and suggestions for recommended reading. To submit content or make enquiries, email Brandy Bauer, IRCT Communications Officer, at tortureandterrorNL@irct.org
FIDH 17, passage de la main d’or 75011 Paris FRANCE Phone: +33 1 43 55 25 18
For more information about the “Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism” project, please visit the IRCT web site (www.irct.org) or contact: Sune Segal, Head of Communications, IRCT, +45 20 34 69 14, sse@irct.org or Isabelle Brachet, Director of Operations, FIDH, +33 1 43 55 25 18, ibrachet@fidh.org
Fax: +33 1 43 55 18 80 www.fidh.org
This newsletter is being published with funding from the European Commission
Coming soon… The September newsletter will be a thematic issue dedicated to discussion of the so-called “ticking bomb” argument and attempts to disregard the absolute prohibition against torture while countering terrorism.
Recommended Reading Readers of the “Preventing Torture within the Fight against Terrorism” newsletter may be interested in the following recent reports which discuss in more depth the issues touched upon in this issue. These resources are not meant to be an exhaustive list.
Amnesty International Report 2007: The State of the World’s Human Rights provides a country by country account of human rights violations occurring in 2006, including information on 102 countries that had cases of torture or ill-treatment by police, security forces and other state authorities. Available at: http:// report2007.amnesty.org/ eng/Homepage
The India Human Rights Report 2007 from the Asian Centre for Human Rights attempts to document human rights abuses in each region of India; in particular the section on Jammu and Kashmir highlights the ongoing problems of arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of those suspected in being involved with armed opposition groups in that region. Available at: http:// www.achrweb.org/reports/ india/AR07/AR2007.htm
Secret detentions and illegal transfers of detainees involving Council of Europe member states: second report, explanatory memorandum details the now proven allegations of the complicity of certain European states with participation in secret deten-
tion operations. Available at: http://assembly.coe.int/ CommitteeDocs/2007/ EMarty_20070608_NoEmbar go.pdf
Sharing experiences of torture survivors, from Advocacy Forum Nepal, documents the experiences of Nepalese citizens subjected to torture by Maoists and state actors. Available at: http:// www.advocacyforum. org/publications/ Sharing_Experiences_of_ Torture_Survivors.pdf
Soldiers were shooting everywhere, a report from Amnesty International, describes the mass torture, rape and death that occurred at the hands of Guinean security forces in early 2007.
Available at: http:// web.amnesty.org/library/ Index/ENGAFR290032007
Ticking Bombs: Testimonies of Torture Victims in Israel from the Public Committee against Torture in Israel presents first-person accounts of nine Palestinian detainees subjected to torture in Israel. Available at: http:// www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/
Torture and incompetence in the “war on terror” by Adam Roberts reviews several recent books about torture and other abuses of civil liberties in counterterrorism strategies. Available in the spring issue of Survival and at: http://ccw.politics.ox.ac.uk/ publications/ roberts_survival491_reviewarticle1_torture.pdf