Friday, August 26, 2005

British interpretation of human rights


According to The Guardian, the UK home secretary, Charles Clarke, had said earlier this month that he would deport foreign nationals whose presence was "not conducive to the public good", despite concerns that they might be tortured overseas. I guess he means people whose presence in the UK could promote terrorist acts.

Very well… but what happened to the human rights, if they ever existed? I thought “criminals” too should be protected by human rights regulations. It has been provided by the European Convention on Human Rights (article 3) that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The applicability of this article to cases of extradition and deportation has been repeatedly manifested in decisions of the European Court on Human Rights (see for example the case of Soering vs. the United Kingdom). The prohibition provided by this article is absolute. It permits no justification or limitation and cannot be derogated under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights even in times of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

Beside the European Convention on Human Rights, there are other international treaties (i.e., The Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) which expressly and specifically address the question of sending individuals to a country where they will be exposed to the risk of prohibited treatment.

I guess human rights are important only when they justify invading another country. What was it called? Iraqi freedom….

P.s. Some info discussed above is adapted from a paper by Nuala Mole.

No comments: