Vulnerable to torture

Amnesty International (AI) has dubbed the tendency of European countries to rely on mere diplomatic assurances against the use of torture to deport, expel, or extradite persons as a violation of the principle of non-refoulement that prohibits the transfer of people to places where they risk facing torture. The danger of dilution of this important post-war democratic guarantee is ominous for the world's refugees and other repatriates fleeing violence and poverty in conflict zones. Western nations that were in the forefront of the struggle for universal human rights standards in the 1950s and continue to hold them up as the only enduring prospect for geo-political stability in the 21st century should review their recent retrograde policy stance which is a part of their current global counter-terrorism strategy.

An AI report documents growing evidence, since the 9/11 bombings of the twin towers, of a number of European countries deporting terror suspects on the basis of mere diplomatic assurances that they would not be tortured. The complicity of many European states in the notorious Bush era legacy of renditions of terror suspects from the United States military base in Guantanamo Bay is a class apart. In an extremely reassuring contrast, the European Court of Human Rights and courts in individual European countries have ruled that, notwithstanding the assurances from authorities in the recipient states, the risks of ill-treatment are not mitigated.

Against such categorical and overwhelming judicial interpretations, states should honour their international obligation to prosecute those suspected of terrorist offences rather than shirk their legal responsibility under the pretext of potential threat to national security. Given their non-binding character, the Amnesty report argues, diplomatic assurances are unenforceable and promises of humane treatment of select individuals from states with a record of torture must necessarily be suspect.

Equally, the effectiveness of sporadic monitoring of the situation would have to be weighed against the reality of secrecy surrounding acts of cruelty, routine official denial of involvement, failure to investigate allegations, and the consequent impunity the perpetrators enjoy. The relative advantages of an effective law enforcement machinery, transparency and accountability place the onus squarely on advanced democratic states to show leadership in combating terrorism and crime without putting suspects in jeopardy of torture abroad.Hindu News