A step closer to Redress: new torture bill opens the way for state accountability

Paul Glynn

Last updated 02/07/2008 20:10:00

"Governments hate to be embarrassed," says Carla Ferstman, Director of Redress, an NGO dedicated to seeking justice for survivors of torture.

"If this bill is enacted it'll send a message: there are consequences for everything. And it'll be a vindication for torture survivors.

She's speaking from Redress's headquarters in Vauxhall, London, where the organisation is campaigning to see new legislation brought in to improve the rights of torture victims.

The bill in question, the Torture (Damages) Bill, was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Archer of Sandwell in February 2008 and is now past its second reading. If enacted, foreign governments and officials guilty of torture will no longer be safe from civil suits in the UK, allowing victims to pursue them through the courts.

One such victim is Les Walker, a British national imprisoned in Saudi Arabia in February 2001 for more than 900 days. With no recourse to the law, he was kept in isolation for four months and systematically tortured over ten weeks.

Upon his release he has been unable to function normally, with serious physical and psychological problems. In 2006 his claim against the Government of Saudi Arabia was rejected by the House of Lords on the grounds of State Immunity, which prevents torture victims seeking justice through a UK civil court.

"The British Government usually doesn't want to see these kinds of cases go ahead," says Ferstman. "They'll take the side of the foreign government for political and diplomatic reasons. That's what angers victims the most- that their own government won't stand up for them and appears not to care about them."

The passing of the Torture (Damages) Bill would change this, removing some of the protection provided to foreign governments under the State Immunity Act of 1978.

Exceptions to State Immunity are already recognised - UK businesses, for example, can sue foreign governments for breach of contract.

To allow torture victims to exercise a similar right seems a minor, and obvious, further step to take.

No-one's asking the British Government to takes sides here," Ferstman explains. "If this bill is enacted, it simply means that victims can take legal action by themselves. The Government can then step back and say that they're private cases."

In practical terms, a successful prosecution could allow the courts to seize certain UK-based assets of the government responsible. However for victims, redress for torture is not necessarily about compensation.

"It's about acknowledgement. It's about the recognition that a horrific wrong was done to you for no reason, and that the perpetrators have often gone free," Ferstman says. "The UN Convention against Torture has been on paper for twenty one years. If this bill is passed, we'll be one step closer to achieving what's set out in it. It'll send a message to foreign governments to stop doing this."

There are limitations to the bill - for example, victims must be unable to obtain redress in the country in which the torture occurred, a measure aimed at preventing a deluge of claims.

But it still faces a rocky road if it is to be passed into law.

The British Government has proved cagey in the past, reluctant to allow civilians to take matters into their own hands on the grounds of damaging international relations.

Nonetheless, the campaign to see it enacted is gaining a foothold. Launched last year on the International Day of Support for Torture Victims, the bill has attracted considerable interest in the House of Lords, with members of all the major political parties speaking in its favour. Whether this momentum can see it enacted before November remains to be seen.

"It would be a really positive step," Ferstman says. "The law until now has been unclear, but this would allow victims to pursue their claims freely and without interference."

It would also be a chance for a government mired in controversy over anti-terror laws and British citizens in Guantanamo Bay to lay its cards on the table. With a UN convention that condemns torture and guarantees remedy to its victims, it is hard to imagine how any government, in the face of media scrutiny, could afford to equivocate.

As Lord Archer put it to the House of Lords, "A Government who announce that they want to see torture going unredressed and torturers defying justice would expose themselves to international contempt."

To get involved, volunteer or raise funds for Redress visit http://www.redress.org/