Dispatches from the Dark Side

By Victoria Brittain

In this series of essays the solicitor Gareth Peirce, who over decades has represented people subjected to the most egregious human rights violations in the UK, has laid bare the frightening current picture of legal and governmental practice in the UK and the US which shames our civilisation.

Dispatches from the Dark Side

The essays, which were previously published in the London Review of Books over the last two and half years, cover a wide canvas of injustice. She highlights the culture of secrecy in both the UK and the US which lies behind the inhuman and illegal treatment meted out in Guantanamo Bay; the hysteria of the ‘war on terror’ as it has affected Muslims in Britain; the hypocritical distortion of the Lockerbie case for political reasons; the use in the US of solitary confinement for years and the acceptance of evidence given under coercion and as part of a plea bargain; and the role of the European Court of Human Rights currently considering its verdict as the last resort for men who face extradition from the UK to the US. Is it unacceptable cruel and inhuman punishment that such a man will face, ‘upon his anticipated conviction, solitary confinement in a Supermax prison, ADX Florence in Colorado, potentially for life and without any prospect of parole. He will be confined in a cell seven feet by twelve feet, with a moulded concrete bunk; his food will be delivered through a slot in the door; external communication, even with a doctor, will come via a closed circuit television in his cell.’

Peirce, as the lawyer for many of these people, is able to spell out here the slender, or ludicrous, grounds on which men like the young American Syed Fahad Hashmi, are charged. (In his case, faced with the prospect of seventy years in prison, he changed his plea to guilty after three long years in solitary before the trial.)

She quotes Dickens in the US in 1842 on solitary confinement, ‘I believe that those who devised the system of prison discipline and those benevolent gentlemen who carry out its execution do not know what it is they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years inflicts upon the sufferers …’

Today, she points out, there is no question that everyone knows just how this regime breaks people, and is designed to do so. She writes chillingly of the ‘rage to punish’ which penologists in the US describe as having started in the late twentieth century among politicians and the general public.

Reading her litany of horror, delivered in cool legal language, any government lawyer, or MP, or official in the Ministry of Justice, might feel the need to resign in order to keep their self-respect.

Even the belated British government apology for Bloody Sunday after the Saville inquiry, and then the initiative of David Cameron’s government shortly thereafter, this summer, to open an inquiry into torture and the complicity of British intelligence officers, are shown by Peirce to show the usual British establishment mechanisms whereby the top men are always saved from facing their responsibility for the very serious wickedness that was done on their watch.

With what feels like relief, she cites the ‘words of moral authority’ of Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O’Brien, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland who, in the al-Megrahi controversy questioned ‘the cruelty of an appetite for lifetime imprisonment which represents nothing more than an insatiable desire for vengeance’.

This important book is Gareth Peirce’s own words of moral authority.

—-
FOOTNOTE

Dispatches from the Dark Side by Gareth Peirce. Verso £9.99.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Source: Institute of Race Relations

Don’t deprive refugees access to justice

By Ayesha Christie

Closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice has left 10,000 asylum seekers without legal representation to fight ‘culture of disbelief’

The tragic death of Osman Rasul last week confirmed some of my worst fears of how the closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) would impact on some of our most vulnerable clients.

I left RMJ a few months before it went into administration. My former clients included victims of trafficking, torture survivors, children and rape victims. Some had recently arrived in Britain and were in the initial stages of the asylum process; others had been here for many years and, like Rasul, were in the process of submitting fresh claims for asylum. The majority of those making these claims were initially unrepresented or poorly represented, and the evidence required to support their case was not previously obtained or put forward, resulting in a negative decision. Some were destitute and had been living in limbo for years, and many clients now suffer from mental health problems.

The sudden closure of RMJ left around 10,000 clients without legal representation. Many were left unclear as to what was happening with their case, and how and where to find another legal representative when there are so few immigration lawyers. We knew that given the fragile mental state of many of our clients, losing their legal representative with no warning or appropriate explanation could have devastating consequences.

Without a quality legal representative, an asylum applicant barely stands a chance when faced with the adversarial asylum system and “culture of disbelief” is pervasive within the Home Office and UK society in general. This is largely thanks to politicians and the press bandying around terms like “illegal immigrant”, “economic migrant” and “bogus asylum seeker” without regard or understanding of what it means to be fleeing persecution.

From day one, I worked to the expectation that my clients would be refused asylum initially and their cases were likely to go on to appeal, as the Home Office refuses approximately 75% of asylum applications. 28 per cent go on to win at appeal; others appeal further if the immigration judge is found to have made a legal error in dismissing their case. Sometimes the Home Office refusal letters are well reasoned, but in many cases the reasoning is weak, the evidence is outdated or selective, and in one case my client’s refusal letter was copied word for word from that of her partner– despite the fact the reasons for refusal did not apply to her case.

This week saw another example of the distorted media coverage of this issue. A front-page article in the Times on the absence of Home Office representatives at immigration appeal hearings declared: “Thousands take advantage of undefended appeal tribunals” – a statement that is profoundly misleading.

First, the article conflates asylum with migration, not comprehending that there is a difference between those who are fleeing persecution and are recognised as refugees in need of international protection, and those who have migrated to the UK – whether it be to study, work or reside with an immediate family member. Then there is the suggestion that immigration judges, whose job it is to consider all the evidence and submissions from both sides, fail to do so in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, resulting in a neverending flood of migrants entering the UK. This is irresponsible journalism, and far from reality.

It is undoubtedly in the interests of justice that representatives are present for both parties at the appeal. However, in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, the judge is still required to review the Home Office’s reasons for refusing the application, and the Judge may question the appellant on issues raised.

The Times indicates that 41,470 immigration cases were allowed on appeal in 2009, of which 17,473 were unattended by the Home Office. But the real concern is not whether these hearings were attended by the Home Office, but that so many immigration cases are refused by the UK Border Agency, appealed, and subsequently allowed. What the statistics really show is that, last year, the Home Office made an incorrect decision in over 40,000 cases.

The legal aid budget is expected to be significantly cut under the new coalition government. So the priority should be improving the quality of decision-making within the UK Border Agency. Depriving asylum seekers of their opportunity to access justice will result in greater spending in the longer term and have a devastating impact on the lives of vulnerable individuals in genuine need of protection.

• Anyone wishing to donate money for the repatriation of Osman Rasul’s body to Iraq, please visit Friends of Osman Mohammed

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: the opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Build migration bridges, not barriers, say churches

Hundreds of churches across Britain demonstrated their solidarity with migrants and displaced people over the weekend, taking part in Racial Justice Sunday.

On 12 September 2010, the theme of the annual event was ‘Migration: Building Bridges or Barriers?’ and the focus was on the practical and biblical question ‘who is my neighbour?’

Materials for local congregations were developed by the Catholic Association for Racial Justice and Churches Together in Britain and Ireland – the official ecumenical body for Anglican, Catholic, Free Church, Orthodox and other indigenous and Black majority churches across the four nations.

Sermons, discussions and prayer and worship liturgies stressed that “all human beings long to find space to tell their story”, not least people whose economic, social or spiritual situation requires them to be on the move.

The materials used by local churches emphasised the biblical call to welcome and embrace the stranger, contrasted to the often harsh, insensitive and discriminatory practices adopted by government towards migrants.

The Roman Catholic Church across Britain has recognised that it has been particularly been effected by population flux in recent years.

Bishop Patrick Lynch, chair of the Office for Migration Policy at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales declared last week: “The phenomenon of migration has always been part of human history. The International Organisation for Migration defines migration as ‘the movement of people either across an international border or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes the migration of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people and economic migrants.”

He continued: “The Church recognises that migration of people, both voluntary and involuntary “has turned into a structural reality of contemporary society” (Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi ). It is a global phenomenon, touching all regions, crossing all ecclesiastical and national boundaries and affects millions of human beings.”

“In Britain over the last few years, there has been a transformation of the social character of the dioceses in England and Wales,” said Lynch. “We sometimes call it ‘the Changing Face of Britain’. Across the country in all our dioceses but especially in our large cities, we have migrants from many parts of the world adding vibrancy to our parishes. In the ‘Mission of the Church to Migrants’ the Bishops of England and Wales have considered this new social reality and have called for a more visible culture of welcome, hospitality and solidarity with migrants.”

The Catholic leader concluded: “Racial Justice Sunday gives us the opportunity to recognise the suffering migrants have experienced through misunderstanding, exploitation, insecurity, uncertainty, injustice and poverty but also to celebrate the rich cultural and spiritual patrimony of migrants and to give visibility to the ways they are enriching us in our parishes and dioceses. It is an opportunity not to be indifferent to those around us, ‘who unsettle us and do not look or speak like us’ but to identify them as our neighbours and to reach out to the people we do not know, to migrants, to refugees and people seeking sanctuary who share the pews in our parishes.

“The Church calls us to be open minded and welcoming to migrants and refugees, to listen to their stories to celebrate the values they bring to our communities and to stand in solidarity with them,” the bishop emphasised.

Source: Ekklesia

Effects of immigration detention on children documented

A medical charity says it has documented for the first time the effects of immigration detention on children facing removal from the UK.

Medical Justice, which sends doctors into removal centres, looked at 141 cases over six years.

More than 70 children were reported to be suffering psychological harm. Six girls, including an eight-year-old, had suicidal thoughts.

The government says it will end child detention, although it’s unclear how.

Medical Justice has volunteer doctors, lawyers and caseworkers who examine the cases of about 1,000 detainees every year.

In its report, it reviewed a sample of cases between 2004 and this year in which clinicians had documented medical evidence of children who had been harmed by detention.

Read more

Asylum battles: two victories and one setback

By Frances Webber

The rights of asylum seekers were upheld in two recent court judgments – but those facing deportation on national security grounds were denied justice in a third.

In the first case, the charity Medical Justice (http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/) (MJ) challenged the UK Border Agency (UKBA)’s practice of snatching refused asylum seekers, including children, and removing them from the country without adequate notice. Normal policy is to give 72 hours’ notice of a proposed removal, to enable legal challenges to be brought in the High Court – and five days where the person is refused asylum with no UK right of appeal, or where removal is to take place by charter flight. But UKBA claimed the right not to give 72 hours’ notice in certain cases, particularly where it alleged that those affected would react badly to the news of removal – including those threatening suicide, and unaccompanied children who might run away. Then, after disturbances at Campsfield House removal centre in March 2007 following delivery of removal directions to a number of detainees, UKBA extended the ‘exception’ policy to include situations where they deemed it contrary to ‘good order and discipline’ to give advance notice. These exceptions to the 72 hours notice were set out in a policy document in December 2009, and came into effect in January 2010.

Access to justice upheld

In the High Court, lawyers for Medical Justice argued that giving no notice risked denying those affected of their right of access to a court to challenge the removal. They told the judge about two Eritrean minors who had been arrested at 4am for removal at 7.30 and 9.30am under the new policy: the first had injured herself preventing her removal, while the second had not been able to stop being removed to Italy, where she had ended up, according to a distressed call she made to her solicitors, living with a male stranger she had met on the street. A young man, Nyam, was arrested at 11pm for removal at 7am and only managed to avoid removal because his solicitor woke a judge at 1.30am and obtained an injunction.

The judge accepted that it was inevitable, or at least highly probable, that many of those to be removed would be deprived of their right of access to the court, because of the huge difficulty in getting hold of a lawyer who was ready, willing and able to advise and, if necessary, to drop everything to mount an immediate legal challenge. He rejected the Home Office argument that those to be removed would have already exhausted the appeals process and would thus have no reason to challenge their removal, pointing out at least four situations where a legal challenge might be necessary:

* when people had made fresh applications and the notice of removal was given at the same time as refusal of the fresh claim;

* when removal was being enforced years after refusal of the asylum claim, by which time family circumstances or the situation back home might have changed so as to make removal unlawful;

* when someone was to be removed to a third country, which gave rise to no right of appeal;

* when the safety of the route of return was in question.

Shortage of immigration lawyers

The judge pointed out that even before the demise of Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ), the largest provider of legal advice to asylum seekers, changes to the provision of legal aid since 2000 meant that the private and not-for-profit providers of publicly funded legal services in this field had more than halved since 2001/2, from 527 to only 239 in the whole country. This meant, he held, that ‘there are formidable (if not invariably insurmountable) obstacles to be overcome because of the difficulties of first contacting an immigration lawyer; second the immigration lawyer might be unable to take on the case at such short notice; third the likely unavailability of crucial documents; fourth the problem of obtaining financial assistance and fifth the difficulties of the legal advisor being able to advise and obtain an injunction in the limited time available’. There were no legal safeguards such as deferral of removal where legal help had been sought but not yet found, or where judicial review was threatened but proceedings had not yet been brought.

Right to work upheld

The second case involved the right to work of refused asylum seekers who have put in fresh claims. ZO, a Somali woman, and MM, a Burmese man, had arrived in 2003 and 2004 respectively, and each had sought and been refused asylum. In early 2005, each of them had made fresh claims – in ZO’s case, because the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal later held that Somali women in her position were entitled to international protection. In each case, their fresh claim had not received a response five years later. In 2007, both asked for permission to work while awaiting the outcome of their claim. Both were refused. The Supreme Court held, in July 2010, that that refusal was unlawful.

European law

The case turned on the words of the EU Reception Directive, which was adopted by the European Council in January 2003 as a measure to ensure minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers which would normally be enough to ensure them a dignified standard of living and comparable living conditions in all Member States. The Directive states that if an asylum claim has not been dealt with after a year, the claimant should be granted access to the labour market. The Home Office argued that the requirement only applied to those making their first asylum claim, not refused asylum seekers making fresh claims. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that the language of the Reception Directive, mirroring that of the companion directives on procedures and criteria for granting protection to asylum seekers, was completely clear and the provisions regarding the right to work obviously applied to repeat claimants – although there were provisions to enable national authorities to curtail rights in cases of abuse.

The decision provides hope to the many thousands of asylum claimants who have been forced into conditions of destitution, misery and depression by the lack of income and enforced inactivity brought about by the ban on working during the scandalously long periods of waiting for their claims to be acknowledged and processed.

Justice denied

The third case saw the Court of Appeal accept the Home Office argument that those facing deportation on grounds of national security are not entitled to a fair trial of the allegations of support for terrorism on which the proposed deportation is based. Secret evidence has been at the heart of the procedures of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) since its foundation in 1997. It is written in to SIAC’s rules, which allow the Secretary of State to withhold details of allegations and supporting evidence from appellants and their lawyers where disclosure would harm national security. The challenge to these rules followed the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling that those facing allegations of support for terrorism in the context of control orders (ie, British citizens and foreign nationals who cannot be deported) must be told the gist of the case against them to comply with fair trial requirements in the Human Rights Convention.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling creates an enormous disparity in the way foreign nationals who are facing deportation are treated, compared with British and non-deportable foreign nationals facing identical allegations. While the latter group are entitled to know what it is they are being accused of so that they can mount an effective defence, the former group must continue to fight the allegations blindfolded – a situation which the courts accept is unjust.

In the same judgment, the Court of Appeal also confirmed that different rules apply to material which appellants want to withhold from the Secretary of State while presenting it to SIAC. Algerian detainees who claimed that they would face torture on return wanted to present supporting evidence emanating from confidential sources in Algeria, but would only do so under an absolute guarantee of confidentiality, that the material would not get back to the Algerian authorities, who could order reprisals against the informants. They asked SIAC to hear the evidence secretly, without disclosing it to the Secretary of State. SIAC refused, and said that once the appellants presented the material, it was up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to inform the Algerian authorities. The Court of Appeal upheld this stance. Its judgment made it clear that protecting the rights of those facing deportation on national security grounds, and upholding centuries-old standards of fairness, were low on its list of priorities, beneath parliamentary sovereignty and the diplomatic interests of the state. In its appeal to reasons of state, its judgment is reminiscent of eighteenth-century monarchy at its absolutist worst, and eight appellants now face deportation to torturing states, under cover of discredited ‘diplomatic assurances’, on an evidential basis largely unknown to them. An appeal to the Supreme Court is planned.

Source: Institute of Race Relations

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Dont Deprive Refugees of Access to Justice

By Ayesha Christie

Closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice has left 10,000 asylum seekers without legal representation to fight ‘culture of disbelief’

The tragic death of Osman Rasul last week confirmed some of my worst fears of how the closure of Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) would impact on some of our most vulnerable clients.

I left RMJ a few months before it went into administration. My former clients included victims of trafficking, torture survivors, children and rape victims. Some had recently arrived in Britain and were in the initial stages of the asylum process; others had been here for many years and, like Rasul, were in the process of submitting fresh claims for asylum. The majority of those making these claims were initially unrepresented or poorly represented, and the evidence required to support their case was not previously obtained or put forward, resulting in a negative decision. Some were destitute and had been living in limbo for years, and many clients now suffer from mental health problems.

The sudden closure of RMJ left around 10,000 clients without legal representation. Many were left unclear as to what was happening with their case, and how and where to find another legal representative when there are so few immigration lawyers. We knew that given the fragile mental state of many of our clients, losing their legal representative with no warning or appropriate explanation could have devastating consequences.

Without a quality legal representative, an asylum applicant barely stands a chance when faced with the adversarial asylum system and “culture of disbelief” is pervasive within the Home Office and UK society in general. This is largely thanks to politicians and the press bandying around terms like “illegal immigrant”, “economic migrant” and “bogus asylum seeker” without regard or understanding of what it means to be fleeing persecution.

From day one, I worked to the expectation that my clients would be refused asylum initially and their cases were likely to go on to appeal, as the Home Office refuses approximately 75% of asylum applications. 28 per cent go on to win at appeal; others appeal further if the immigration judge is found to have made a legal error in dismissing their case. Sometimes the Home Office refusal letters are well reasoned, but in many cases the reasoning is weak, the evidence is outdated or selective, and in one case my client’s refusal letter was copied word for word from that of her partner– despite the fact the reasons for refusal did not apply to her case.

This week saw another example of the distorted media coverage of this issue. A front-page article in the Times on the absence of Home Office representatives at immigration appeal hearings declared: “Thousands take advantage of undefended appeal tribunals” – a statement that is profoundly misleading.

First, the article conflates asylum with migration, not comprehending that there is a difference between those who are fleeing persecution and are recognised as refugees in need of international protection, and those who have migrated to the UK – whether it be to study, work or reside with an immediate family member. Then there is the suggestion that immigration judges, whose job it is to consider all the evidence and submissions from both sides, fail to do so in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, resulting in a neverending flood of migrants entering the UK. This is irresponsible journalism, and far from reality.

It is undoubtedly in the interests of justice that representatives are present for both parties at the appeal. However, in the absence of a Home Office presenting officer, the judge is still required to review the Home Office’s reasons for refusing the application, and the Judge may question the appellant on issues raised.

The Times indicates that 41,470 immigration cases were allowed on appeal in 2009, of which 17,473 were unattended by the Home Office. But the real concern is not whether these hearings were attended by the Home Office, but that so many immigration cases are refused by the UK Border Agency, appealed, and subsequently allowed. What the statistics really show is that, last year, the Home Office made an incorrect decision in over 40,000 cases.

The legal aid budget is expected to be significantly cut under the new coalition government. So the priority should be improving the quality of decision-making within the UK Border Agency. Depriving asylum seekers of their opportunity to access justice will result in greater spending in the longer term and have a devastating impact on the lives of vulnerable individuals in genuine need of protection.

• Anyone wishing to donate money for the repatriation of Osman Rasul’s body to Iraq, please visit Friends of Osman Mohammed

Global justice gap condemns millions to abuse:Report

A global justice gap is being made worse by power politics despite a landmark year for international justice, said Amnesty International today in its annual assessment of human rights worldwide.

Launching Amnesty International Report 2010: State of the World’s Human Rights, which documents abuses in 159 countries, the organization said that powerful governments are blocking advances in international justice by standing above the law on human rights, shielding allies from criticism and acting only when politically convenient.

“Repression and injustice are flourishing in the global justice gap, condemning millions of people to abuse, oppression and poverty,” said Claudio Cordone, interim Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Read full Press Release

Refugee and Migrant Justice charity faces closure

Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ), which was established in 1992 by the government as the Refugee Legal Centre is facing closure as £1.8 payments backlog mounts. RMJ is the UK’s largest provider of free legal advice and representation to asylum seekers.

The government has been warned of impending chaos in the asylum system if a body representing the rights of people fleeing persecution and violence is forced to close due to changes in the way legal aid is paid.

The charity took on 11,000 new clients last year, including many from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Zimbabwe. This included 900 unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking. But the charity faces an acute cash crisis because a growing proportion of its legal aid work is now paid only upon completion, leaving it with a short-term lack of funds.

“RMJ is not asking for new money, simply prompt payment of legal aid for the work it does,” said Caroline Slocock, the RMJ chief executive. “Charities like us, which are an important part of David Cameron’s ‘big society’, cannot wait for up to two years for payment while the Home Office processes cases.”

The problem is due to changes to legal aid payments made under the previous Labour government. Now payment for most legal work is made once decisions on cases have been taken by the Home Office, resulting in delays of up to two years before costs are reimbursed.

The crisis comes after the current government has committed to speeding up the asylum system and reviewing the legal aid system. The government insists that it cannot revisit the legal aid funding rules set down by the previous government because new contracts are about to be issued. Ministers say it would cause too much disruption to stop the process, as the contracts take effect in October.

RMJ needs to be paid £1.8m over six months in order to survive. It claims that the cost of its closure to the taxpayer would be in excess of £2m because the government would need to pay RMJ and a second provider to take on its cases.

“We do hope the government will reconsider and agree to take a genuinely fundamental look at legal aid in this area,” Slocock said. “Otherwise, the asylum system will face chaos, with 10,000 asylum seekers and victims of trafficking at risk, including 900 children. Charities like RMJ will also be forced out of work at a time when the new government wants to open up the ‘big society’.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “If RMJ fails, we accept that there will be some disruption while their clients look for help from another adviser. However, LSC [the body that oversees legal aid] believe that capacity will not be adversely affected as clients and caseworkers will be able to transfer to other organisations, as has happened in similar situations.”

See Press Release

Related article

Related article

Kenneth Clarke says scrapping Human Rights Act not priority

By Tom Whitehead

A Conservative pledge to rip up the Human Rights Act has been kicked into the long grass after Kenneth Clarke, the new Justice Secretary, signalled it was not priority. Read more

30 August – Day of the Disappeared

Tommorrow, Sunday 30th August marks the International Day of the Disappeared.

Enforced disappearances persist in many countries all over the world, having been a continuing feature of the second half of the twentieth century since they were committed on a gross scale in Nazi-occupied Europe.

An enforced disappearance takes place when a person is arrested, detained or abducted by the state or agents acting for the state, who then deny that the person is being held or conceal their whereabouts, placing them outside the protection of the law.

Very often, people who have disappeared are never released and their fate remains unknown. Their families and friends may never find out what has happened to them.

But the person has not just vanished.  Someone, somewhere, knows what has happened to them.  Someone is responsible.  Enforced disappearance is a crime under international law but all too often the perpetrators are never bought to justice.

Every enforced disappearance violates a range of human rights including:

• the right to security and dignity of person
• the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
• the right to humane conditions of detention
• the right to a legal personality
• right to a fair trial
• right to a family life
• when the disappeared person is killed, the right to life

Enforced disappearance is a particularly cruel human rights violation; a violation of the person who has disappeared and a violation of those who love them.

The disappeared person is often tortured and in constant fear for their life, removed from the protection of the law, deprived of all their rights and at the mercy of their captors. It is a continuing violation which persists often for many years after the initial abduction.

If the person does not die and is eventually released, they may continue to suffer for the rest of their life from the physical and psychological consequences of this form of dehumanization and from the brutality and torture which often accompany it.

Their family and friends, not knowing the fate of their loved one, wait, sometimes for years, for news that may never come. They do not know if their loved one will ever return, so they cannot mourn and adjust to the loss. Their anguish is often exacerbated by material deprivation if the missing person is the mainstay of the family’s finances. Sometimes they cannot obtain pensions or other means of support if there is no death certificate.

What Amnesty International is doing

Amnesty International condemns all enforced disappearances as crimes under international law.

In recent years, in the course of the “war on terror”, the USA, sometimes with the complicity of other governments, has acrried out enforced disappearances of terror suspects.  Amnesty International has campaigned to demand that the USA and all states reveal the whereabouts and fate of disappeared persons, and if they are not to be released that they are charged with a recognizably criminal offence and given a fair trial in accordance with international standards.

We also seek to bring to justice those who commit enforced disappearances.

Every year Amnesty International also joins activists around the world to observe 30 August as the International Day of the Disappeared, to remember those who have disappeared and their relatives.

Case study

On 14 January 1990, 43 people were abducted in Colombia from the Pueblo Bello community in Antioquia department by 60 army-backed paramilitaries.

This was allegedly in retaliation for the theft of some cattle belonging to a paramilitary commander. The 43 were taken to a farm where they were most probably killed.

On the road to the farm, the paramilitaries were not challenged at a military checkpoint, despite reports that screams could be heard coming from the trucks.

Following exhumations, six bodies were identified as victims of the Pueblo Bello abductions. The fate of the other 37 victims remains unknown.

Some paramilitaries have been given prison sentences for killing the six people identified. However, the perpetrators responsible for the enforced disappearance of the other victims have gone unpunished.

Campaigning work

In December 2006, the UN adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The convention aims to prevent enforced disappearances taking place, uncover the truth when they do occur, punish the perpetrators and provide reparations to the victims and their families.

This is considered to be one of strongest human rights treaties ever adopted by the UN. Some of its provisions appear for the first time and introduce important new standards.

Amnesty International is joining other members of the International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances to call on all states to ratify the new convention. For the convention to be effective, governments must introduce legislation to implement it.

To support the convention and take action against enforced disappearance click here

Read the full text of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

« Previous Page — Next Page »