Highly classified documents, previously undisclosed, have been revealed during UK High Court civil proceedings taken by former Guantánamo inmates against MI5 and MI6, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Attorney General's Office. Following a failed attempt by the government to suspend proceedings, the disclosed documents have shown the extent of the Labour government's involvement in the abduction and torture of UK citizens in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in the US. One set of documents appears to disclose how the Foreign Office declined to raise objections over the transfer of British citizens from Afghanistan to the U.S. prison camp in Guantánamo Bay.
Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that an inquiry will be established within the year, chaired by former Appeal Court judge Sir Peter Gibson, to look at claims of UK securities services' complicity in the torture of terror suspects. It was further stated that on-going criminal and civil cases must end before the inquiry can begin.
A useful guide to key passages from the classified documents disclosed in high court proceedings, can be found on the Guardian website.
Meanwhile, a judgment from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has re-iterated the absoluteness of the ban on torture. The case of Gäfgen v. Germany (application no. 22978/05) concerned a German national who complained of a violation of Article 3 (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment), alleging he had been subjected to torture when questioned by the police over the whereabouts of a young boy - a boy to whose murder and abduction he was later sentenced.
The Grand Chamber judgment differed from the Chamber on a crucial point, finding that the applicant could still be considered a victim of a violation of Article 3, even though a violation of his human rights had already been recognised by authorities in Germany. It ruled that the police officers who were found guilty of coercion and incitement to coercion in Germany were only sentenced to very modest and suspended fines. The Court thus concluded that the punishment failed to instill a significant deterrent effect to prevent future similar violations of Article 3 and thereby failed to provide the applicant with sufficient redress for the breach of his Article 3 rights.
Click here to find out more about the case of Gäfgen v. Germany (application no. 22978/05) in full.