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 5, 2006

Geneva – Day 2: U.N. Committee Listens to NGOs

A gorgeous spring day on the shores of Lake Geneva, but the action today was indoors, as the Committee against Torture continued its session at the Palais des Nations – the U.N.’s European headquarters. Although the United States is only one of several countries whose compliance with the Torture Convention is under periodic review by the Committee, no one is surprised that the lion’s share of NGO and media attention is focused on the United States. That attention is warranted not only because of serious concerns surrounding the U.S. “war on terror” detention and interrogation practices and policies, but also because of the tremendous influence that U.S. conduct has on other nations’ compliance with human rights obligations.

The sense of drama heightened today – one day before the United States comes before an international human rights treaty body for the first time since September 11, 2001 – as 12 NGOs made rapid-fire, 2 minute presentations before the Committee and then responded to Committee members’ questions for another half hour. The NGOs were uniformly critical of U.S. policies, practices and legal interpretations both at home and abroad, in stark contrast to the periodic report submitted by the United States, which clings to the claim that by and large, all is as it should be. This contrast feeds a sense of anticipation about what the U.S. will say tomorrow and Monday in response to questioning, in the face of evidence that abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo and elsewhere and a lack of accountability have been widespread.

Some organizations addressed domestic concerns, while others, including Human Rights First, focused on the U.S. conduct in the “global war on terror.” Testimony was given on secret detentions (or disappearances, which earn U.S. condemnation when committed by other countries) and extraordinary rendition (kidnapping people and delivering them to other countries for extrajudicial detention and interrogation, where they face torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment). Presenters also pointed to the inherent lack of reliability of diplomatic assurances from countries with dismal human rights records that they will not torture detainees rendered to them by the United States. (The United States relies on diplomatic assurances to negate claims that the United States transfers individuals to torture.) The reliance on diplomatic assurances is of particular concern these days surrounding the Administration’s announced plan to transfer detainees out of Guantánamo. Some of the detainees may be at risk of torture if returned to their countries of origin.

The use of evidence gained through torture, the continued failure by the Administration to disavow practices such as waterboarding, stress positions, sensory assaults and deprivation were also discussed. As to these and other abuses, a constant theme was impunity. It was also noted that prosecution for “war on terror” abuses may require the approval of the very individuals who had a role in promulgating legal guidance that was used to justify the abusive practices, such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

I briefed the Committee on the McCain Amendment – a law prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any of U.S. agents anywhere in the world. I stressed to the Committee that the enactment of the law, while laudable, is not enough. It needs to be implemented from top to bottom - all the way up and all the way down the chain of command.

Following our presentations, members of the Committee asked us several questions indicating their keen engagement with the subjects raised and their skepticism about the U.S. report. One member of the Committee asked whether the United States might be convinced to join the ranks of countries that permit the Committee to accept individual complaints. No one suggested that was likely, but NGO representatives were of one voice in noting that the stronger the voice of the Committee when it publishes its findings later this month, the more support it will provide to NGOs in their continuing advocacy. “Yes, we must use powerful language when speaking to powerful countries,” noted one member.

All attention is now focused on the presentation by the United States. Tune in here.

Previous Diary Entries

Read previous posts from Human Rights First observers.

Related Links

Military Commissions: An Overview

Read about the Individual cases