UN Convention Against Torture:  Discrepancies in Evidence Given to the Committee About the Use of Prohibited Interrogation Techniques in Iraq.

The team of lawyers acting for the family of Baha Mousa and the nine victims of torture in the same incident today welcomed the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights into the use of prohibited interrogation techniques by the British Army in Iraq, which was published on 27th July 2008.

The Report claims that the evidence which the Committee had been given by ministers and senior officers appears to have been incorrect and that they are yet to receive an explanation from the MoD for these discrepancies.

Former armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, and Lieutenant General Robert Brims, former commander of UK forces in Iraq, had assured the Committee that banned interrogation techniques such as hooding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, would not be used by the Army and that training took full account of the prohibition.

However, the evidence which emerged in the course of the Court Martial into the death of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian who died in the custody of the British Army, demonstrated that the use of the “five techniques” was in fact sanctioned by Brigade Headquarters and beyond.  The report goes on to claim that, even as late as January 2008, the prohibition on the use of conditioning techniques was not clearly articulated to service personnel other than those responsible for interrogation.

The Report claims:

“The evidence we received from Lt General Brims and Mr Ingram formed the basis for the section of our Report on the UN Convention Against Torture dealing with interrogation techniques.  It would appear that this evidence was incorrect and that, as a result, we were unable to give a full account to Parliament of the human rights issues relating to the use of such techniques.”

The Committee has sought an explanation into these discrepancies and expects the MoD to report as soon as possible after the conclusion of the public inquiry into the use of the banned techniques in Iraq.

Sapna Malik, Partner at Leigh, Day & co stated: “This is yet further evidence that the Army’s formal position in relation to the use of banned interrogation techniques in Iraq has been utterly inconsistent with the evidence on the ground.  It is hoped that the public inquiry will finally explain why and how our clients were treated in such an abhorrent way”.