JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, June 26, 2010

[JURIST] The Legislative Council of Hong Kong [official website] on Friday approved an addition of 10 members [amendment, PDF] to its body. By a vote of 46-12, the council approved increasing its membership number to 70 one day after it approved changes [The Standard report] to the way in which Hong Kong's chief executive is elected. While Hong Kong's current Chief Executive Donald Tsang [official profile], applauded the changes—the first to Hong Kong's electoral procedures since the change from British rule in 1997—the additions to the council were seen by many as a blow to the pro-democracy movement [Reuters report] in the country. In remarks made after the vote [transcript], Tsang focused on the bipartisanship needed to pass the reforms:

For too long, partisan politics, political infighting, and distrust of the Central and SAR governments have marred the discussions not only in LegCo but also public affairs at large. This time round, some parties and scholars have shown us how constructive political dialogue and mutual trust can bring real benefits to the community.

The changes to the council's membership and the method of electing a chief executive will be implemented in 2012.

The changes to the Hong Kong political and electoral process are a significant first step [WSJ editorial] for the nation, but they do not go far enough for some, and the result has divided members [AP report] of Hong Kong's Democratic party. One of the provisions of the new system calls for a scaling back of so-called "functional constituencies", which are positions on the council selected by special interests, rather than by popular vote. China's willingness to compromise on these constituencies, while a political victory [AP report] for that nation, may also signal an understanding that China will have to adhere to its promise [The Economist report] of universal suffrage for Hong Kong by 2020.

[JURIST] The UK High Court [official website] ruled [judgment text] Friday that restrictions must be placed on whether British soldiers in Afghanistan may transfer detainees to Afghan-run detention facilities. The judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Richards and Justice Cranson, examined the allegations of abuse of seven detainees at the hands of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), Afghanistan's intelligence agency. Citing, "independent reports ... of widespread and serious ill-treatment of detainees," the justices maintained a December 2008 moratorium on the transfer of detainees to the NDS facility in Kabul. The justices also lifted a temporary moratorium on the transfer of detainees to the NDS facility in Kandahar, giving deference to Canada's decision to transfer prisoners to that facility. Lastly, the justices allowed transfers to an NDS facility in Lashkar Gah, provided that in addition to existing safeguards, the following also be implemented:

(i) all transfers must be made on the express basis (spelling out the requirements of the MoU and EoL) that the UK monitoring team is to be given access to each transferee on a regular basis, with the opportunity for a private interview on each occasion; (ii) each transferee must in practice be visited and interviewed in private on a regular basis; and (iii) the UK must consider the immediate suspension of further transfers if full access is denied at any point without an obviously good reason (we have in mind circumstances such as a security alert) or if a transferee makes allegations of torture or serious mistreatment by NDS staff which cannot reasonably and rapidly be dismissed as unfounded.

The court's ruling does not prevent the transfer of detainees to Kabul from the approved facilities, though the court called the likelihood of such transfers "insufficiently large."

In April, the High Court received documents from human rights lawyers that alleged British troops were allowing the torture of detainees [JURIST report] in Afghanistan. Concerns over detainee abuse were first brought to light in a 2007 report [JURIST report] by Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website], which said that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) [official website], led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was exposing terrorism detainees to risks of torture by transferring NATO-held detainees into custody of Afghanistan authorities. AI's report focused on actions by Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK, saying that the forces from those countries have been transferring terror detainees to the NDS, despite numerous reports of torture. The report prompted a 2008 suit, which mirrors similar allegations that Canadian military officials were complicit [JURIST news archive] in the torture of detainees that were transferred to Afghanistan officials.

[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay [official profile] on Friday warned people and nations that practice torture [JURIST report] that they cannot escape the reach of justice [statement]. Commemorating the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, Pillay noted that 45 UN member states have not ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [text] and that many states party continue to practice torture. Pillay also expressed concern over democracies that generally abide by the rule of law but have maintained amnesties that prevent torturers from being brought to justice:

Torture is an extremely serious crime, and in certain circumstances can amount to a war crime, a crime against humanity or genocide. No one suspected of committing torture can benefit from an amnesty. That is a basic principle of international justice and a vital one.

Pillay promised that the international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] would continue to prosecute those responsible for torture when national courts fail to act.

Earlier this month, UN rights experts called on the UN Human Rights Council [official website] to investigate findings [JURIST report] from a report [text, PDF; JURIST report] released earlier this year detailing the secret imprisonment of terrorism [JURIST news archives] suspects by 66 countries, including the US, Ethiopia, Romania and Pakistan. UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Manfred Nowak [official website] indicated that secret prisons [JURIST news archive] remain a widespread problem and can often lead to torture. Last month, The UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) [official website] urged Syria, Yemen and Jordan to conduct thorough investigations [JURIST report] into allegations of torture by law enforcement officials.