Do we take the law on human rights seriously? It seems that the British legal system is prepared to indulge in petty argument about jurisdiction rather than deliver justice. An Iraqi citizen, who subsequently claimed asylum in the UK in the 1990s returned to Iraq in October 2004, was arrested and has been detained in Basra ever since. He may well be a terrorist, but no charges have been brought against him. In this country, of course, he could be detained for no longer than 28 days under such circumstances. However, in Iraq, it seems, detention can be indefinite. Meanwhile, this case attracts very limited coverage in the press, or even by Amnesty International. Why? Have all you journalists and campaigners gone to sleep for Christmas?
Hilal Abdul-Razzaq Ali Al-Jedda, 50 year old father of 6 and holder of dual British and Iraqi nationality has been held prisoner in Iraq since being arrested on October 10th 2004 by US forces and handed over to the British forces. He complains that his detention infringes his rights under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. These claims were rejected by the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court and also by the Court of Appeal; both courts “delivered lengthy and careful judgments, commensurate with the importance and difficulty of the issues then raised”
From 29th to 31st October the House of Lords had a hearing of his case based on a new question: “the attributability in international law of the conduct of which the appellant complains.” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ ldjudgmt/jd071212/jedda-1.htm). So is Al-Jedda subject to UN or British law? The judgement was made by the House of Lords on 12th December. After thirty nine paragraphs, covering the history of who had jurisdiction over whom during both the course of the Iraq war and the period following it, we finally hear: “There is in my opinion only one way in which they can be reconciled: by ruling that the UK may lawfully, where it is necessary for imperative reasons of security, exercise the power to detain authorised by UNSCR 1546 and successive resolutions, but must ensure that the detainee’s rights under article 5 are not infringed to any greater extent than is inherent in such detention. I would resolve the second issue in this sense.
Furthermore, a third issue arises: “whether English common law or Iraqi law applies to the appellant’s detention.” Apparently, after further deliberation “The appellant’s claim in tort is governed by the law of Iraq”
In other words, the British acting in Iraq can make up their own laws, not the same as those exercised within Britain, and when it is convenient, they can claim that it is nothing to do with them, in any case, since Iraq is now in charge of their own country.
No comments:
Post a Comment