ECHR blocks Abu Qatada deportation from UK

Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:25

The European Court of Human Rights yesterday blocked the Home Office from deporting Abu Qatada who has been convicted for terrorism offences in Jordan in absentia. The Court said there was a ‘real risk’ that upon deportation, Qatada would face a trial where evidence used against him had been obtained by torture, thus denying him access to a fair trial in violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

From The Guardian:

“The European court of human rights has blocked the deportation to Jordan of Abu Qatada – who has been called Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe – because he risks facing a trial based on torture-tainted evidence.

“The Strasbourg judges upheld the British government's strategy of attempting to deport international terror suspects to countries which have given diplomatic assurances that they will not face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

“But in a ruling published on Tuesday the human rights court said there remained a real risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used against Qatada, or Omar Othman as he is also known, and that would amount to a "flagrant denial of justice".

“The ruling means that Qatada could apply for bail within days to be released from Long Lartin maximum security prison in Worcestershire. It is expected that the Home Office will try to insist on the strictest possible bail conditions, similar to a new form of control order that would place him under house arrest for part of the day.

“Although the Strasbourg judges upheld Britain's "deportation with assurances" agreement with Jordan, their decision to block the removal of the most high-profile international terror suspect remaining in the UK must put a question mark against the credibility of the strategy. The ruling says that the failure of the Jordanians to give a specific assurance that torture-tainted evidence would not be used against Qatada means he should not be sent back.

“Qatada, a Jordanian national born in 1960 near Bethlehem, was first detained in Britain in 2002 under the "Belmarsh" legislation as an al-Qaida suspect. He has been convicted in his absence in Jordan of being involved in two terrorist conspiracies in 1999 and 2000 to carry out bomb attacks. The human rights court ruling says that the evidence of his involvement was obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants and there was a high probability it would be used at his re-trial and that it would be "of considerable, perhaps decisive importance".”

The ECHR ruling stated that “Torture and the use of torture evidence were banned under international law. Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects pre-trial. Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.”

Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti rightly stated that the use of torture and torture-tainted evidence is “widespread in that country [Jordan]. So it is clear that if Abu Qatada is to be tried for terrorism, this should happen in a British court without further delay."

Amnesty International expressed alarm at the ECHR acceptance of ‘diplomatic assurances’ as being sufficient to reduce the risk of torture, stating that, “This is an alarming setback for human rights."

Theresa May has made clear the Home Office’s frustration at the decision, "I am disappointed that the court has made this ruling. This is not the end of the road, and we will now consider all the legal options available to us. In the meantime, Qatada will remain in detention in the UK.”

Rather than seeing this as a step forward for Britain as example of a country where universal human rights are valued and respected, the Government’s shameless anger at the ruling reveals a worrying attitude to civil liberties that denies human rights to certain individuals. Given that evidence obtained by torture cannot be used in British courts and is widely deemed as unreliable, Britain would be complicit in the unfair trial of Qatada or others, were people to be deported by Britain to countries where a fair trial was not guaranteed. Such a position undermines Britain’s efforts to repair significant damage to its reputation caused particularly by allegations of British complicity in the torture of both British and foreign nationals abroad.

Comments

Add New