U.N. Convention Against Torture Observations

Gabor Rona, International Legal Director for Human Rights First, is in Geneva observing the United States’ presentations to the Committee and will also brief the Committee on several issues of concern. He is reporting daily on the events in Geneva as they unfold.

May 4, 2006

Geneva – Day 1: Meeting the Experts of the UN Anti-Torture Committee

Today was my first day in Geneva. Yet there was no time to get reacquainted with the city which I called my home prior to joining Human Rights First. A few hours after my plane landed in Geneva, I was to appear, along with my colleagues from other NGOs, at the Palais des Nations, where we were scheduled to give a private informal briefing to the members of the Committee Against Torture. This was the first opportunity for NGOs to meet informally with Committee Members and to voice their concerns about specific instances of non-compliance by the United States with the Convention Against Torture.

The meeting was attended by eight of the ten Committee Members – all distinguished experts in the field of international law. Not surprisingly, the Committee Members were keenly interested in hearing our views on the impact that the United States’ conduct during the “war on terror” has had on human rights. The NGOs were in agreement that the record of the Untied States in this area has been incredibly poor.

On February 7, 2002, President Bush issued a Memorandum stating that none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to the U.S. conflict with al-Qaeda, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which gives all detainees a basic right to humane treatment) does not apply to al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees, that neither al-Qaeda nor Taliban detainees are entitled to prisoner-of-war status under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and that certain detainees are “not legally entitled” to humane treatment. A series of legal memoranda and often inconsistent guidance followed (some later withdrawn) on what permissible interrogation treatment would entail.

Confusion following this conflicting advice, coupled with a failure of command to clarify orders, or to correct unlawful behavior when abuses started to occur, resulted in widespread torture and abuse by U.S. troops against detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our best accounting, to date finds more than 330 cases in which more than 600 U.S. military and civilian personnel were credibly alleged to have abused, tortured or killed over 460 detainees. Only a fraction of U.S. personnel – 40 people – have been sentenced to prison time and only 10 individuals received prison sentences of a year or more.

There have also been allegations for the past several years of individuals being detained by the United States in secret locations, without access by the Red Cross, without any due process, and without any oversight. In addition, the United States is alleged to have engaged in “extraordinary rendition” – a term that describes cases in which the United States is reported to have captured and transferred individuals to other countries, where they have been subjected to torture or abuse in prolonged detention and interrogation.

The abuses committed by U.S. personnel, the failure by commanders to investigate allegations of torture, the use of secret detentions and “extraordinary renditions,” and the failure by the U.S. government to provide detainees with redress for claims of torture – are all violations of the Convention Against Torture. Yet, the United States has not adequately addressed these instances of non-compliance with the treaty in its second periodic report. This is why our meeting with the Committee today was so important. I had the opportunity both to reiterate to the Committee the concerns Human Rights First outlined in its written submission and to encourage the Committee Members to question the U.S. delegation on information they have thus far not provided. For example, who is in charge of renditions and what oversight mechanisms exist to protect against torture and other abuse? I also brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that the one agency that was closely associated with some of the worst abuses (including torture of a detainee to death) and that has been implicated as a primary actor in “extraordinary renditions” – the CIA – is conspicuously absent from the U.S. delegation.

The Committee Members were attentive to our briefings and had a number of questions for us. One Committee member asked about the content of Army interrogation rules, and our views on the U.S. reservation to Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture. (The U.S. has recently taken the position that the Article 16 prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment has no application to U.S. conduct abroad, a position supported neither by the text of the treaty, nor by the text of the U.S. reservation to Article 16, nor by the U.S. official who represented the U.S. at the time the reservation was enacted.) The question was timely, since the U.S. is poised to issue a new Army Field Manual on interrogation in the coming weeks. This will be an early opportunity for the world to see whether or not the U.S. intends to honestly and fully comply with the recently passed McCain Amendment's prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, by any U.S. agent, anywhere in the world. I emphasized, however, that the passage of the McCain Amendment in and of itself was not sufficient evidence of U.S. compliance with the Convention Against Torture. The United States must now prove that this law is more than a symbol by ensuring that it is fully implemented at all levels, including in the Army Field Manual.

Another Committee member asked whether the U.S. civil society feels guilty that it has not done more to expose and prevent abuses. To this, my NGO colleagues replied that while there was a period during which the civil society was not as active as it could have been, that period is now long gone.

Tomorrow, my NGO colleagues and I will have an opportunity to make formal presentations to the Committee. Then on Friday, I will have the opportunity to observe the formal presentation by the United States of its Second Periodic Report on compliance with the Convention Against Torture. On Monday, the NGOs will get another opportunity to meet informally with the Committee Members – this time to reflect on the formal presentation by the United States. The hearings will be concluded by another formal session during which the United States will have the opportunity to reply to particular questions and concerns of the Committee.

I will report back tomorrow on my impressions of the formal presentations by the NGOs.

Previous Diary Entries

Read previous posts from Human Rights First observers.

Related Links