STOPPING THE TORTURE TRADE: KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION - - PDF document

STOPPING THE TORTURE TRADE: KEY ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Torturers are not born, they are nurtured, trained and supported. In many cases they rely

• n foreign governments for the tools of their trade and expertise in how to use them. Some

governments are directly involved in the torture trade; others prefer to turn a blind eye. Some of the tools of the torture trade seem almost medieval — shackles, leg irons, thumbscrews, chains and whips. However, in the last decade there has been a marked expansion in the manufacture, trade and use of other kinds of technology used by security and police forces, especially electro-shock technology and riot control agents. Dr.Crowley will show us a catalogue of both these old and new "tools of torture". All these devices and weapons, no matter how different, have in common the potential to inflict severe pain and injury. They also share a serious lack of official controls on their manufacture and sale. Manufacturing, trading and promoting equipment which is used to torture people is a money-making business. The parallel trade in providing training in the techniques of physical and mental torture can be equally profitable. Companies and individuals around the world are involved in providing devices and expertise which are ostensibly designed for security or crime control purposes, but which in reality lend themselves to serious abuse. This is a global trade involving countries on every continent; it also, therefore, involves companies in every region. Controlling the torture trade is an important part of the efforts to eradicate torture. The Global Alliance is a unique opportunity to set the political agenda and to make a number of recommendations to governments, as well as to companies, on how this trade can be effectively controlled. I appreciate the opportunity of being here today and discuss the Global Alliance and its agenda for action. FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS I will start highlighting the already existing human rights standards, including those relating to law enforcement and prison administration, were we based our recommendations.

These already existing standards. Governments already have responsibilities under these. They are: Absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment, state responsibility, the use of force by law enforcement officials should be governed by the principles of necessity and proportionality and States need to provide for the control of less lethal weapons. The Global Alliance is an opportunity for States to fullfill its obligations under human rights law.

• 1. Absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.

Our starting point should always be the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment under international law. The prohibition applies in all circumstances, including in situations of armed conflict, during anti-terrorist operations, or other public emergency. Every state is bound by it even if they are not party to particular treaties containing the prohibition. States are obligated not only to protect people from torture and other ill- treatment by public officials but also from similar acts by private individuals and companies. The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment was recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been included in many subsequent international and regional human rights treaties and other instruments. Many of these instruments, as well as prohibiting torture and other ill-treatment, also require measures to prevent such abuses. And from the obligation, to the solution. By putting in place national legislation that recognizes the prohibition of intrinsically inhumane weapons and the

• bligation on states to adopt strict risk assessments based on human rights

criteria on the transfer of law enforcement equipment, States will be fulfilling its

• bligations under international law and sending a powerful message that torture

and ill-treatment won’t be accepted.

• 2. State obligations and extraterritoriality

States must put in place the minimum standards in order to comply with their

• bligations to respect and protect human rights, including to prevent, investigate,

punish and remedy human rights violations and abuses. It applies to all of a state’s human rights obligations, including in relation to the right to be free from torture and other ill-treatment and the right to life. In the context of law enforcement equipment, the main emphasis is on the state’s due diligence obligation to prevent abuses of the right to life, right to be free from torture and other ill- treatment and other human rights violations by regulating

and restricting access to security equipment when there is a risk that those goods will be used for serious human rights violations. Seems that we have a pattern, It is clear that the nature of the risk and the potential severity of its impacts requires a stringent level of human rights due diligence, where States must establish a comprehensive national trade control system to vet prospective transfers of controlled equipment. Decisions to grant export authorisations for controlled law enforcement equipment should be made

• n a case-by-case basis by the competent authority in the State where the

applicant is based and this way human rights will be protected and obligations under IHRL met. I now would like to mention the use of force standards. The key rule.

• 3. Any use of force by law enforcement officials should be governed by the principles
• f necessity and proportionality

The use of force by law enforcement officers is strictly regulated by international standards like the Basic Principle of Use of Force and Firearms, which require force to be used only by designated, trained and accountable public officials in strictly defined circumstances, and only when other means have failed or are ineffective in the circumstances and when its use is lawful, necessary and proportionate for the law enforcement objective. This is specially important for the torture trade, in relation to the security equipment. Law enforcement agencies and security services use equipment that ranges from the simplest technology – batons and sticks – through to implements like handcuffs, tear gas, water cannon and “stun guns”, to control crowds and restrain people alleged to have broken the law or to be posing an imminent threat to others. There are other regulations, like the UN Code of Conduct and UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

• 4. Control the less lethal weapons

Link to this is the principle that governs the less lethal weapons. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials supports the use of less lethal weapons and provides for their control. Article 2 of these UN Basic Principles states: “Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law

enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms…” And Article 3 states: “The development and deployment of non lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimize the risk

• f endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be

carefully controlled.” So, as I was saying…these are already existing obligations, and it seems to me that the Global Alliance, is a good solution driven initiative to fulfil such obligations. KEY ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION Based on these already existing obligations, Amnesty International and Omega Research Foundation based our recommendations for the key components that an ideal instrument governing the trade on tools of torture should have:

• Ban inherently inhumane equipment offered for law enforcement
• A ban technical assistance in abusive equipment or techniques
• Control the transfer of law enforcement equipment with a risk assessment

regime based on human rights criteria.

• Inclusion of the broadest possible scope of type of items and type of

activities.

• A system for reporting, transparency, exchange of information.
• 1. A ban inherently inhumane equipment offered for law enforcement

Any potential international or national instrument should include a prohibition of the manufacture, use, of equipment that has no practical use in law enforcement other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other ill-treatment; or where its use in practice has revealed a substantial risk of unwarranted injury. These are items inherently abusive that Dr. Crowley will present soon, like restraint chairs, weighted leg cuffs, thumb-screws, spiked batons; stun belts; restraint chairs, shackle-boards; and execution equipment such as gas chambers, gallows and electric chairs.

• 2. A ban technical assistance in abusive equipment or techniques

States must ban technical assistance such as: training in the use of prohibited equipment; training in the inappropriate use of equipment such as employment of batons for strangulation, neck-holds or use of restraints for “hog-tying”; Dr. Crowley will elaborate on this later.

• 3. Adopt a control regime on the transfers of law enforcement equipment like
• rdinary police and prison handcuffs and hand held batons, pepper spray, and
• ther, with a strict risk assessments licencing process based on human rights

criteria. Some states might not associate these goods with the issue of torture, but they are

the most commonly used for that purpose. We have reported on the excessive and abusive used of batons in west African countries, prisoners sprayed with pepper spray directly into the eyes while already under restrained, use of stun weapons (in drive stun mode, repeatedly in mental institutions. A particularly disturbing case is a situation in which darts were fired in a police cell against a mentally disturbed person undergoing a psychosis and resisting taking medication; after the medication was administered, drive-stun mode was used several times, seeking to obtain pain compliance in order to be able to retrieve the darts. Aida camp is one of 19 Palestinian refugee camps in the Israeli occupied West Bank recent study by the University of California, found that Israeli forces use tear gas “widely”, “frequently” and “indiscriminately” against Palestinian refugees. Residents of Aida camp have been exposure to tear gas two to three times per week for more than a year, and in some months, almost every day. Medical symptoms of repeated tear gas exposure consisted of loss of consciousness, breathing difficulties, rashes, and severe pain, lasting many hours after the initial exposure to the gas. We have also seen the excessive and inadequate used of tear gas in the manage of demonstrations in the last months in Gaza. Tear gas should be used for dispersal, and not in close areas. When States are evaluating the licensing of a law enforcement weapon, they need to assess the pattern of use. And where is a risk that it will be misuse. The authorisation for transfer should not be granted. It is a simple equation. It is crucial that trade in equipment is strictly regulated. The premise of this control regime is simple: Law enforcement weapons and devices should never be supplied to recipients who are likely to use them for torture, other ill-treatment or other human rights violations. Just that. Conventional arms are regulated and they are subjected to risk based licencing

• process. This includes parts and components. They fact that policing weapons are

remain unregulated open up a myriad of potential loopholes. Some states might be cautious to the idea of including a system where these items are controlled, but only with a risk assessment licensing control regime, the instrument will effectively contribute to the prevention torture.

• 4. Inclusion of the broadest possible scope of type of items and type of activities.

With this premise, we urge states to include the broadest possible scope of type activities, this includes, manufacture, use, export, import, brokering, transit, or trans-shipment, marketing and promotion. And items. The catalogue of weapons prohibited and controlled in the EU Regulation is a good model. Dr Crowley will elaborate on this later.

5.

A system for reporting and information sharing And finally, any national or international instrument regulating the torture trade, should includes a system of State to State information sharing and reporting and

• transparency. Containing meaningful information on the volume, value, nature of

equipment, and destination of their trade in this area, so as to enable appropriate

• versight by elected representatives and independent bodies.

It is not enough to simply prohibit and criminalize torture and, other acts of ill- treatment under national law; states must take a range of measures to protect people and prevent these forms of abuse. Strict controls on Death Penalty and torture instruments, cooperation among states, information sharing, thorough investigations, are crucial in combatting torture and the death penalty.

THE GLOBAL ALLIANCE: THE PATHWAY FOR CHANGE

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly called upon all states to “take appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use of equipment that have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This decision opens the way for more states to introduce national and regional trade controls similar to those of the EU. In my life, professional life, I have learnt to focus, as much as it is possible, on projects that brings impact and change. This work is one of them. Trade controls based on robust human rights risk assessments, have proven to work. The sale of inhumane equipment has been banned in the EU since 2006. In 2014 the EU amended the set of rules expanding the scope the range of security equipment included. In 2016, the EU also banned promotion and display of this equipment at trade fairs. In November 2017 we found illegal equipment advertised and in displayed in an arms fairs, after engaging with the law enforcement authorities and the arms fair organisers, 2 weeks ago, I was in an arms fair and we could not find anything illegal. Regulating the trade has proven to be successful. But this is in just a small area of the World. We need to keep expanding. Something else needs to happen. It is imperative that shared, effective mechanisms are developed and implemented by states with an aim to limit the opportunity for flouting the rules. In this room today, are represented some of the countries that have shown the political will to put an end to a gruesome trade whose profits are built on the suffering of countless torture victims. Torture does not happen in a vacuum. The social and political context, and the supply of tools and techniques for inflicting pain rely on a failure of political will.

The Global Alliance is the inception of a collective effort to put an end to this trade and work together towards the prevention of torture. The countries in this room have pledge to work towards the end of this trade. If the governments of the world had the political will to stop torture they could do so. Thank you Ara Marcen Naval Advocate Advisor- Arms Control, Security Trade and Human Rights