The Government’s latest attempts to water down the law against torture will be challenged at every step, human rights group Liberty said today.

Liberty will intervene in the 17 October House of Lords appeal to prevent evidence obtained by torture to be admissible in court.

Liberty has now been granted permission to intervene in the Ramzy case, a Dutch case to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights in 2005. The UK Government is intervening to argue that the rule against deporting people to face torture established in 1996 ought to be revisited.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty said:

“The Prime Minister’s claims that returning people to torture or using torture evidence will promote public safety beggars belief.

"As the Government chips away at human rights protections we all risk losing the liberties that form the core of British values.

"How can a democratic government plead the case against torture perpetrated by terrorists or dictators if they indulge in the complicity of reliance upon its product?”

Liberty Press Office: 0207 378 3656 or 07973 831 128

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, Amnesty International-UK Director Kate Allen and others will be in Parliament Square on Monday 17 October at 10am to sign a pledge against torture.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. A and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department House of Lords Intervention

On 18th April 2005 the House of Lords gave permission for Liberty, along with the following organizations, to intervene in the above appeal:

The Aire Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe), Amnesty International Ltd, the Association for the Prevention of Torture, British Irish Rights Watch, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, Doctors for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights, INTERIGHTS, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, REDRESS, the World Organization Against Torture

This intervention is based on the principle that the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute. It is a universal legal obligation owed by each state to humanity. There are no justifications or exceptions that may be invoked to justify torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including the threat posed by terrorism. There are also no geographical or jurisdictional limits on the duty of individual states to take preventative measures against torture, wherever it occurs. The English courts can and must enquire into the legality of actions and laws of foreign states, particularly when fundamental human rights are at stake.

Inherent in the prohibition of torture are those measures necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition. One such measure is the rule requiring the exclusion as evidence in any proceedings of any statement where there is knowledge or belief that it has been obtained as a result of torture. It is clear that this rule is necessary to remove a strong incentive to the commission of torture and to discourage violations of the prohibition.

Further, the principle of the exclusion of evidence obtained under torture is integral to the right to a fair trial. The admission in evidence of statements which are known or believed to have been obtained by torture is unfair, taints the proceedings in question, and is inconsistent with the rule of law.

2. In the Ramzy case to be heard by the European Court in 2005, Liberty, Justice, the AIRE centre, and others will challenge the Government’s intervention in the Dutch case which seeks to overrule the decision which maintained that a signatory state “subjects” someone to torture by sending him to another jurisdiction where he faces that risk. Ends//