Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 14 2005 (IPS) — Iraq’s special war crimes tribunal, and the “anti-terror” measures pursued by its occupying powers, the United States and Britain, are under fire from the United Nations for undermining international human rights standards.

Proposed anti-terror laws in Britain, trials of terror suspects by the U.S. military, and Iraq’s special tribunal to try former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and members of his Ba’ath Party regime all violate global standards, according to U.N. experts on international human rights law.

“The bloody attacks in London and Sharm el-Sheikh clearly demonstrate that terrorists continue to commit acts which should be unanimously condemned,” said Leandro Despouy, special rapporteur of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, in a new report to the 191-member U.N. General Assembly.

But he emphasised that fighting terrorism required “concerted action by the international community”, not legislative steps that deny individual rights to a fair trial, freedom of speech, assembly, association, and the right to strike.

“Many states are debating the adoption of national measures that could undermine adherence to international human rights standards,” the U.N. official said, referring to the current British efforts to adopt tough laws on detention.

On Thursday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair unveiled new anti-terrorism measures designed to crack down on Islamist extremists. Under the new legislation, the British government would be able to detain terror suspects for three months without charge. The proposed legislation makes it an offence to “glorify or encourage” terrorism.

“The government is determined to do all it can to protect our citizens from groups who would try to destroy our society, our way of life and our freedoms,” Home Secretary Charles Clark said as the Terrorism Bill was presented to parliament.

Last month, Britain sponsored a Security Council resolution that called on all governments to adopt laws prohibiting people from “inciting” others to commit terrorist acts, and to deny safe haven to anyone seriously considered guilty of such conduct.

With the United States fully backing Britain, the resolution was unanimously adopted by all 15 members of the Council, despite strong criticism from the world’s leading human rights groups and many developing nations who feared that it could be used to suppress political opposition.

In his report, which focuses on the independence of judges and lawyers, Despouy described the continued detention and retrial of suspects at Guantanamo Bay by the U.S. military commissions as “another disturbing development”.

“They do not allow appeals to brought before a civil judge, deny the right to defence, and discriminate between national and non-nationals, among other problems,” he said.

Early this year, the U.S. government continued to insist that “the circumstances were not favourable” to honour requests by several U.N. human rights experts to visit Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and other detention centres, he added.

However, U.N. experts have decided to conduct an investigation regardless of whether or not they are allowed to visit the U.S.-run prisons, Despouy told the General Assembly.

The U.N. official also took the Iraqi government to task for creating special courts to try Saddam Hussein loyalists.

The Iraq Special Tribunal was first set up by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority and later reaffirmed by the Iraqi interim government. It hears cases involving Iraqi nationals or residents accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious crimes committed between 1968 and 2003.

Human Rights Watch has complained that the Special Tribunal lacks basic protections, including providing for proof of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and the right to counsel and right to remain silent.

“The Tribunal’s power to impose the death penalty demonstrates the extent to which it contravenes international human rights standards,” Despouy wrote. “Because it was established during an occupation and was financed primarily by the United States, its legitimacy has been widely questioned, with the result that its credibility has been tarnished.”

Hussein’s trial on charges of crimes against humanity begins on Oct. 19, despite attempts by his lawyers to get the proceedings delayed. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Noting that the Special Tribunal may only try Iraqis for acts committed before the May 2003 U.S.-led invasion, Despouy urged the Iraqi government to “follow the example of other countries with deficient judicial systems by asking the U.N. to set up an independent tribunal”.

While Iraq has yet to respond to this suggestion, Australia, another close U.S. ally in the Iraq war, seems ready to follow Britain’s lead. Last month, Australian Prime Minister John Howard proposed measures that would authorise a variety of “control orders”, such as house arrest and electronic tracking devices attached to suspects. The proposal has outraged civil society groups within and outside Australia.

“Putting people under house arrest for a year by a control order is tantamount to jailing people without trial,” says Brad Adams, Asia director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch. “This is shocking.”

Meanwhile, in his report to the General Assembly, Despouy concluded his thoughts and findings by saying: “Nothing can combat irrational acts and extreme forms of violence more effectively than the wisdom embodied in the rule of law.”