Torture ban 'a casualty of war on terror'

“The absolute ban on torture, a cornerstone of the international human rights edifice ... is becoming a casualty of the so-called ‘war on terror,”’ she said.

Arbour said “two phenomena today are having an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” – seeking diplomatic assurances to justify the return or transfer of suspects to countries where they face a risk of torture and holding prisoners in secret detention.

Diplomatic assurances may make countries complicit with torture carried out by others and secret detention facilities create the conditions for torture by a country’s own agents, she said.

Arbour called on the US and other countries to state clearly and unambiguously what practices they accept and don’t accept in the interrogation of suspects, and whether they operate secret detention centres at home or abroad and provide details.

The UN high commissioner for human rights also called for a ban on returning people to countries where they may face torture and on secret detentions, access to all prisoners, and prosecution of those responsible for torture and ill-treatment.

“There are lots of human rights that can be set aside temporarily in cases of emergencies, lots of them, but not the right to life and not the protection against torture,” she stressed.

Arbour welcomed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement Wednesday that the US government supported the prohibitions in the UN Convention against Torture, and their extension to US personnel everywhere.

The 1994 UN treaty also prohibits certain treatment that doesn’t meet the legal definition of torture. That includes practices that human rights organisations say were used routinely at the US military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where several hundred Muslim men have been held without charge for nearly four years.

At every stop on her European tour this week, Rice has faced questions about US practices in the pursuit of terrorists, including whether the CIA has run secret prisons on European soil or mistreated prisoners.

Arbour urged US authorities to grant all detainees the right to legal counsel of their choice, “access without impediments or restraints to national courts,” and international scrutiny of US facilities including access to detainees.

No country can ask “for a blank check saying, ‘Just trust us. There are very bad things happening out there. We will handle it and the less you know the better.’ That’s completely inappropriate in democratic societies,” she said.

While Rice said cruel and degrading interrogation methods are off limits, she gave no examples of banned practices, did not define the meaning of cruelty or degradation, did not say if the rules would apply to private contractors or foreign interrogators, and made no mention of whether exceptions would be allowed.

Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court justice, said she is “very concerned” that some US policies allow – or advocate – exceptions to using torture, “for instance ... where the CIA should be exempted from that prohibition” which she argued would probably be illegal under US law.

The US historically has played “an immensely important leadership role” in setting standards for civil and political rights which has put it in a position to lecture other countries, she said.

But the perception of US policies today “makes it a lot more difficult for the US to exercise that kind of moral leadership on all human rights issues and it provides a very convenient excuse for others to claim ‘double standards’ ... when they’re brought to account for their poor performance,” Arbour said.

This has made the international enforcement of human rights standards more difficult, she said.