View previous stories
	Torture widespread in many regions of world, UN Human Rights Council told by Reuters & agencies   Sept 2006   Torture widespread in many regions of world, UN Human Rights Council told. (UN News)   Most States have not taken the necessary legislative measures to ensure that law enforcement officials get the message that torture constitutes a serious crime which can never be justified, an independent expert has told the United Nations Human Rights Council.   This failure contributes to a climate of impunity and a lack of awareness, which in turn constitutes one of the major reasons that torture persists in many countries and regions of the world, said the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak.   The practice of torture in Uzbekistan was systematic, Mr. Nowak told the session, which is meeting in Geneva. Torture persisted in Georgia, perpetuated by a culture of impunity. In Mongolia, torture persisted in police stations and pre-trial detention facilities and impunity went unimpeded.   In Nepal, torture is systematically practiced by the police forces and the military, he said, adding that in China, the practice of torture, though on the decline – particularly in urban areas – remains widespread.   Sept 2006   UN Rights Envoys Condemn Bush Plan on Interrogation, by Stephanie Nebehay. (Reuters)   Geneva - United Nations human rights investigators said on Thursday that legislation proposed by President Bush for tough interrogations of foreign terrorism suspects would breach the Geneva Conventions.   In a statement to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the five independent envoys also said Washington"s admission of secret detention centres abroad pointed to "very serious human rights violations in relation to the hunt for alleged terrorists".   They again called for the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where hundreds of foreign terrorism suspects are being held, alleging continued violations of international law on torture and arbitrary detention.   Despite U.S. declarations of intent to shut Guantanamo, Washington had done nothing yet and was even planning to open a new cell bloc at the end of this month, they said.   "We call on the government to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center and, until that time, to refrain from any practice amounting to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," they said.   The statement was read out by Leila Zerrougui, the Algerian chairwoman of the U.N. working group on arbitrary detention.   She is one of the five investigators who have tried since June 2004 to visit Guantanamo detainees. Washington has said it would allow three of them to go for one day, but not to see prisoners privately, a key demand of the investigators.   In reply, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Warren Tichenor reiterated Washington"s desire to close Guantanamo but said that this could only be done when other countries agreed to take some of the prisoners being held there.   Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, told journalists that others remained unaccounted for, which he said amounted to the banned crime of "enforced disappearances".   "We have a number of further individuals that have been detained and we do not know where they are," he said, adding that the Council should give the five envoys a mandate to investigate all past and present secret centres.   A U.S. House of Representatives panel endorsed Bush"s bill for tough interrogations and trials of foreign terrorism suspects.   The other special envoys report on freedom of religion, physical and mental health and the independence of judges.   The five said that the bill, which has still to be approved by the full House and the Senate, amounted to an attempt to "legalise" rights violations that have been condemned in Guantanamo and elsewhere.   The proposed legislation was "in breach with United States" human rights obligation as identified in our report and with the requirement of article 3 of the Geneva Conventions," they said, referring to the 1949 treaty which lays down basic guarantees of protection for detainees.   The plan would allow the U.S. government to arrest and detain indefinitely people who were not involved in any armed conflict and torture was not banned outright, they said.   Sept 2006   Bill Clinton Warns Against Torture Approval. (Reuters)   Former U.S. President Bill Clinton joined a chorus of critics of Bush administration proposals for treating suspected terrorists, saying it would be unnecessary and wrong to give broad approval to torture.   In an interview with National Public Radio the former President said any decision to use harsh treatment in interrogating suspects should be subject to court review.   "You don"t need blanket advance approval for blanket torture," Clinton said.   Clinton"s successor, President George W. Bush, wants Congress to narrowly define prisoner protections under the Geneva Conventions and allow a program of CIA interrogations and detentions that critics have said amount to torture.   The White House denies the program involves torture. The U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down Bush"s original plan.   Clinton warned against circumventing international standards on prisoner treatment, citing U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, criticism of treatment at the Guantanamo Bay prison for suspected terrorists and a secret CIA prison system outside the United States.   "If you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we"re going to be in real trouble," Mr Clinton said.   Like many other critics, he said information obtained with harsh treatment may be unreliable and adopting abusive practices could lead to captured U.S. troops being subjected to the same.   Even if there were circumstances where such treatment is necessary to prevent an imminent attacks, Clinton said:   "You don"t make laws based on that. You don"t sit there and say in general torture"s fine if you"re a terrorist suspect. For one thing, we know we have erred in who was a real suspect."
	A milestone for international humanitarian law by Jean-Philippe Lavoyer ICRC   22-09-2006   (Official Statement by Jean-Philippe Lavoyer, head of the legal division, ICRC).   When the last two remaining States signed up to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the treaties achieved universal recognition as the principal legal basis for protecting victims of war. But, says the ICRC’s top legal advisor, Jean-Philippe Lavoyer, much remains to be done to achieve universal compliance.   Amid the recent crisis in the Middle East, violence in Sri Lanka and continuing bloodshed in Darfur, there was at least some good news for war victims with the decision by Nauru and Montenegro to accede to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, that made those treaties the first in modern history to achieve universal acceptance: they have now been formally accepted by all 194 States in the world.   The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005 constitute the fundamental law protecting human life and dignity in time of armed conflict.   The universality of the Geneva Conventions is a powerful argument to counter those who insist that international humanitarian law is no longer adequate to deal with contemporary wars. They are wrong.   "Humanitarian law remains the most effective legal framework… because it was developed specifically to balance States’ security needs and the need to protect human life and basic rights…"   The fact that all countries are party to the Geneva Conventions means that everyone has now undertaken to respect and to ensure respect for those treaties in all circumstances.   International humanitarian law remains the most effective legal framework governing the conduct of hostilities because it was developed specifically to allow for the legitimate security needs of States, on the one hand, and to protect human life and basic rights on the other.   It is certainly possible to achieve a balance between the two and the need to do so remains as strong as ever. You can exercise armed control over a territory while sparing the civilian population, and you can detain people threatening public order without degrading or humiliating them.   Satisfaction over the universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions should not blind us to the fact that humanitarian law treaties are all too often breached. In particular, the continuing suffering of civilians shows that we are still far from universal compliance with the laws of war.   Adhering to the letter of the law is only a first step. Certainly, one of the main weaknesses of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law as a whole is the lack of viable enforcement mechanisms.   Respect for the Conventions is primarily the responsibility of the States that have accepted them. More often than not, however, States lack the political will to take concrete action for war victims and to take the measures necessary to prevent, as well as to investigate and punish, violations of the law.   So what else can be done to ensure that international humanitarian law prompts protection of and assistance for people suffering because of war?   As a first step, States must see to it that those who need to be familiar with international humanitarian law – particularly their armed and security forces – are instructed in it and trained to apply it in real-life armed conflict. At the same time, governments must set up the legal framework and the procedures needed to comply with the many rules of humanitarian law.   The recent creation of the International Criminal Court has raised hopes that States will ensure prosecution of those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, thus boosting the universal fight against impunity.   While only States are in a position to take the required legislative, administrative and practical measures in their domestic legal orders, it is important to point out that international humanitarian law is also binding on non-State armed groups participating in armed conflict.   The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) will persevere in its efforts to make international humanitarian law better known and respected all over the world. For the international community as a whole, universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions should be a timely reminder of just how much more needs to be done to achieve universal compliance. Visit the related web page
	View more stories