RINF.COM: 속보 대안
토요일, 2008년 7월 제 12
RINF.COM: 속보 대안
|
|
속보 |
이라크에 있는 인권: 응답할 것이다 케이스
수요일, 2007년 5월 30일 RINF 공개토론에 있는 이 보고를 토론하십시오 > 계시하는: 주가 육군 장을 법적 보호 피억류자에게 `' 충분히 부정하도록 조언한 방법 Goldsmith 로버트 Verkaik의, 법률 편집자간행하는: 2007년 5월 29일법무 장관 의 Goldsmith 주, 향함 비난이어, 그가 그것의 군인이 검거할 때 인권 행위에 의해 바운스되지 않은 육군을 말했다 이라크 포로를 억류하고 질문한. 전쟁의 시작이 건의한 Goldsmith 후에 이라크에 있는 런던과 영국 육군 본부 사이 Independent가, 빨리 보인 이전에 은밀한 전자 우편은 주 통보 "실제적인" 접근을 포로를 취급할 때 채택하기 위한 것이고 인권 행위의 보호의" 고수준"를 따르는 것은 필수이. 저것은, 인권 변호사에 따르면, 인권 행위를 묵살하고 간단하게 제네바 협정을 관찰하도록 군을 조언해 법무 장관과 동등했다. 그것은 또한 met.이기 위하여 고수준을 촉구한 이라크에 있는 육군의 고위 변호사에 의해 충고된에 반대 이었다. 오늘, 국제법에 있는 권리 그룹 그리고 전문가는 영국 군인 에의한 이라크인의 남용의 문화를 창조하는 것을 도울 수 있던 말하는 주 법적 견해를 적발하기 위하여 Goldsmith 정부를 요구할 것이다. 지난 달, 전쟁 범죄에 대하여 유죄가 입증된 첫번째 영국 군인은 년간 투옥되고 육군에게서 이라크 민간인, 영국 군인의 손에 그의 상해로 죽은 호텔 노동자를 포함하여 Baha Mousa 학대에 대하여 유죄가 입증되기 후에 해산되었다. 2005년에, 3개의 영국 군인은 "트로피" 사진 후에 독일에 있는 court martial에 의해 나와 투옥되, Camp Bread 바구니에게 불린 원조 센터에 학대되어 이라크 피억류자를 보여준. 권리 그룹이 법적 배상을 위해 준비하는 남용의 대략 60의 주장이 더 있다. 지난 주, 인권에 의회의 양원 합동 위원회는 정부에 Baha Mousa court martial에 있는 고문의 기록에 관하여 "설명을" 요구할 것을 썼다. 앤드류 Dismore MP 의 위원회의 의자는, 밝혔다: "우리는 국방부 잔인한의 사용에 관하여 우리의 위원회에 선물된 기록에 있는 굳어지는 모순인 것처럼 보이고 1972년 만큼 옛날에 금지되는 타락 심문 기술." 무슨이 설명하도록 요구했다 But emails sent just after the invasion indicate Lord Goldsmith’s belief that British soldiers in Iraq were not bound by the Human Rights Act. The documents also show a wide differing of opinion between him and Lieutenant-Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the Army’s most senior legal adviser on the ground, who wrote to say he felt “the ECHR would apply” to troops in Iraq. On one occasion, Rachel Quick, the legal adviser to Permanent Joint Headquarters who had regularly sought and been given guidance from Lord Goldsmith on the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, wrote to Colonel Mercer giving her interpretation of the Attorney General’s advice. His view, she said, “was that the HRA was only intended to protect rights conferred by the Convention and must look to international law to determine the scope of those rights”. Ms Quick went on say that the advice of the Attorney General, supported by Professor Christopher Greenwood [the barrister who advised Lord Goldsmith on the legality of the war], was that, in the circumstances, the HRA did not apply. “For your purposes,” she wrote, “I would suggest this means no requirement for you to provide guidance on the application of the HRA. I hope this is clear.” Ms Quick, who in November 2003, was appointed OBE, added: “With regard to the detention of civilians - I will look at your documents in more detail and discuss with FCO, MoD legal advisers. Although my initial thoughts are you are trying to introduce UK procedures to a Geneva Convention IV context. Whilst this may be the perfect solution it may not be the pragmatic solution. Again we raised this issue with the AG and got a helpful steer on the procedures. I’ll aim to try to produce guidance, taking into account their advice on the detention of civilians.” Such were the concerns of legal advisers on the ground over the Attorney General’s views that the MoD arranged for the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, Gavin Hood, to visit Permanent Joint Headquarters to settle any worries. Crucially, the emails make clear Lord Goldsmith’s legal opinion was not shared by Colonel Mercer, who contacted his superiors in London to ask for guidance after he had witnessed the hooding of 40 Iraqis at a British PoW camp in March. The men were all forced to kneel in the sun and had their hands cuffed behind their backs. Worried this could leave the soldiers vulnerable to prosecutions, he told the MoD that in his view soldiers should behave in accordance with the “higher standard” of the Human Rights Act. But the response from the military’s Permanent Joint Headquarters in Qatar was that Lord Goldsmith had told the MoD the human rights law did not apply and soldiers should simply observe the Geneva Conventions. When Colonel Mercer said he disagreed with the Government’s most senior law officer he was told that “perhaps you should put yourself up as the next Attorney General”. Colonel Mercer also asked for a British judge to be flown out to oversee the procedures for the detention of Iraqi prisoners, but this also was blocked at a high level. Colonel Mercer’s interpretation of the law has since proved correct. Thirty months after he first raised his concerns during the Iraq conflict, the Court of Appeal ruled that British soldiers were bound by the Human Rights Act, which bans torture or degrading of prisoners. The emails, part of court documents being prepared to support a judicial review in the High Court this year, reveal considerable disquiet among the military about the Attorney General’s advice. The documents show that as early as March 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross had begun investigating complaints of possible war crimes by British soldiers at the same PoW camp in south-east Iraq that had prompted Colonel Mercer’s original intervention. The Government was so worried about this that it flew out a political adviser from London to address the Red Cross’s concerns about hooding and other practices. International law * Torture is defined by international law as any threat or use of severe pain, physical or mental, against an individual with the intention of obtaining a confession or other information. Under the UN Convention Against Torture, 40 states - including Britain - have agreed not to engage in such practices. During military conflict the third and fourth Geneva Conventions protect prisoners of war and civilians who are held by soldiers. Torture is also defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court, which describes it as the unlawful infliction of severe pain. Many of the incidents of abuse committed by British soldiers on Iraqi civilians may fall outside the strict definition of torture under international law. But under the European Convention of Human Rights, incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, there is no requirement that the threat or use of pain should be severe for an act to fall foul of the law. Lord Goldsmith argued that because UK forces did not have full control of Iraq, the country was not part of its jurisdiction and therefore the Human Rights Act did not apply. He lost this argument when the Court of Appeal ruled that Iraqi civilians held in custody and the soldiers detaining them were subject to the Human Rights Act. The case is to be settled later this year by the House of Lords. If the Government loses then it is expected that full and independent inquiries will be held into the deaths, disappearances and torture of Iraqis by British soldiers. See More:IraqDiscuss this report in the RINF forums > Have Your Say: Human rights in Iraq: a case to answer This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 30th, 2007 at 5:14 am and is filed under Human Rights . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. |
Translations             
Free Newsletter
Related News
Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
