No Security Without Human Rights
Over the five years since the September 11th terrorist attacks, governments have pursued counter-terrorism strategies that undermine basic human rights standards. Far too frequently they lead to grave human rights violations. In the name of improving security, wars have been launched, torture has been excused, and untold thousands of people have been locked up without charge or trial. Such policies not only lead to grave injustices, but deepen the inequities and grievances that increase levels of global insecurity.
Amnesty International has called on governments around the world – including Canada – to ensure that the approach they take to security fully conforms to international human rights standards. Security and human rights can never be a question of one or the other. Both the security and human rights of all peoples must be fully protected.
1. In foreign jails
Over the past four years, a number of Canadian citizens have been arrested and imprisoned abroad, in Syria and Egypt, because of Canadian national security investigations. They have been held without charge or trial and without access to lawyers. They have had very limited family visits and restricted consular assistance. All have experienced severe torture. In all of these cases, it appears that Canadian law enforcement and security agencies have played a significant role and may be responsible for these grave human rights abuses.
Best known is the case of Maher Arar, who was arrested in the United States in September 2002, subjected to extraordinary rendition and secretly sent to Syria. He was held there for close to a year in abysmal prison conditions and tortured. He was released and returned to Canada in October 2003. Public outrage led the government to convene a public inquiry into his case. The inquiry, led by Justice Dennis O’Connor, released its report in September 2006. The report vindicates Mr. Arar and finds extensive fault across a number of government departments and agencies. The government has yet to respond to the report, and has provided no details on implementing its recommendations.
Sadly, Mr. Arar’s case is not alone. Three other Canadian citizens – Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin – were also detained and tortured abroad. There are serious concerns about the complicity of Canadian agencies in what happened to them. In November 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee called on the government to launch an independent and public review of these cases. [1] In the Arar report, Justice O’Connor also recommends that there be an independent and credible review of these cases. The government has indicated that there will be a review, but has provided no details as to the type of review or when it will take place.
- The government should provide a detailed response to the report from the public inquiry into the case of Maher Arar, including a timetable for implementation of the report’s recommendations.
- The government should institute, with no further delay, an independent and credible review of the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati and Muayyed Nureddin.
2. In the immigration system
Non-citizens in Canada face serious human rights violations under the immigration security certificate process. Three Muslim Arab men – Mahmoud Jaballah, Mohammad Mahjoub and Hassan Almrei – are currently imprisoned in Canada under security certificates. Two others – Adil Charkaoui and Mohamed Harkat – have been released on very restrictive bail conditions. Their cases have been proceeding slowly through the courts while they challenge decisions to deport them to Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Syria, where they are almost certain to be tortured.
Immigration security certificates fail to meet the basic international standards for fair trials. Individuals are unable to mount an effective defence as they are denied access to much of the evidence against them. They have no opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, the source of accusations against them. Judges reviewing the certificates are only allowed to determine whether the decision to issue them was reasonable. If so, deportation can go ahead. The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to rule in the coming weeks on appeals brought by Almrei, Charkaoui and Harkat.
- The government should ensure that the immigration security certificate process is reformed to meet international standards governing fair trials.
3. On the battlefield
There are more than 2,000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the UN-authorized International Assistance Stabilization Force. Over the past year, with intensified fighting in southern Afghanistan, Canadian casualties have mounted and there has been considerable public debate about Canada’s role in the country. Much of the discussion has centred on whether Canadian troops should remain there and for how long. It is also crucial to consider whether Canadian policies are contributing to human rights violations in Afghanistan.
Torture and ill-treatment, and substandard, inhuman conditions in prisons have long been matters of serious concern in Afghanistan. Amnesty International has urged the Canadian government to reconsider the decision arranged with the Afghan government in December 2005, to transfer anyone detained during military operations, into Afghan custody. Many of those handed over will almost certainly be tortured and ill-treated. Continuing such transfers, given the likelihood of serious human rights violations, is a breach of Canada’s international human rights obligations.
- The government should stop handing battlefield detainees over to Afghan officials. Instead they should work with the government of Afghanistan to develop detention facilities that comply with international law and assist with long-term reform of Afghanistan’s justice and penal systems
4. In the skies
One particularly insidious aspect of US counter-terrorism practice has been the use of what is known as “extraordinary rendition.” Terrorism suspects are transferred secretly from one country to another, outside of any legal process. They are held in undisclosed locations, where serious human rights violations, including torture, are common. As more information has come to light about this practice, there has been increased focus on the planes used to ferry these prisoners around the world. Apparently, the planes involved have used airports and airstrips in many countries. There are reports that some of the planes have landed in Newfoundland, northern Ontario and Nunavut on at least 75 occasions. Canadian officials have refused to disclose details on the nature of these flights and have not announced safeguards to ensure that Canadian airports and airspace are not used for flights to torture.
- The government should launch a public investigation into allegations that foreign planes involved in activities that violate international human rights standards have made use of Canadian airports and airstrips; and should immediately put in place measures to guard against such a possibility.
5. In Parliament
In the weeks following the September 11th attacks Parliament rushed to adopt new anti-terrorism legislation. Numerous concerns were raised that the need for the legislation was not clear and that many of the provisions directly infringed on essential human rights, particularly with respect to fair trials. The Anti-Terrorism Act mandated that a review of its provisions take place three years after the Act came into force. That review was initiated in December 2004, with review committees struck in both the House of Commons and the Senate.
Two years later, the House of Commons Committee has issued an interim report, recommending (with dissent) that controversial provisions dealing with investigative hearings and preventative arrest be renewed. There has been no other report from either committee. Important concerns have not been addressed. They include:
- the inclusion of political, religious and ideological motivation in the definition of terrorism [2],
- secrecy in legal proceedings [3],
- lack of fairness in procedures for publicly designating groups or individuals as being engaged in terrorist activities.
- The government should press the parliamentary committees that have reviewed the Anti-Terrorism Act to release their reports without further delay and should move to reform the Act to bring it into conformity with international human rights standards.
Notes:
[1] Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Canada, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, 20 April 2006, para. 16.
[2] In his October 24, 2006 decision in the case of Her Majesty the Queen and Mohammed Khawaja, Ontario Superior Court judge, Mr. Justice Rutherford, struck down the “political, religious or ideological motivation” element of the definition as contravening the Charter of Rights. It is not yet known whether the government will appeal. Amnesty International has called on the government not to appeal the decision and to reconsider the remaining definition of terrorism and its relationship to conventional criminal law offences.
[3] In another recent Ontario Superior Court case, O’Neill v. Canada (Attorney General), Justice Lynn Ratushny struck down provisions of the Security of Information Act dealing with leaks of secret information as contravening the Charter of Rights. The government has indicated it will not appeal the decision.
Posted: 14 December 2006