TORTURE: DO AS I SAY, BUT NOT AS I DO

Only the most sincere amongst us will admit that it is much easier to proffer advice than it is to adhere to one’s own advice. The age old adage has never been as apt as at present following claims of torture and the illegal “renditioning” of terror suspects by two of the world’s superpowers, the United States of America and Britain.

Both countries, purveyors of human rights standards, have never shied away from levelling criticisms at “third world countries” or even at fellow superpowers like China and Russia when it is perceived that human rights standards have not been adhered to. Therefore, the discovery of intelligence files by journalists and Human Rights Watch officials which revealed a close co-operation between Libya, UK and US authorities in “renditioning” terror suspects is particularly damaging to the credibility of the British and American human rights credentials.

The papers, which were discovered in the offices of Moussa Koussa, Libya’s Head of Intelligence Services under the Gaddafi-led government, reveals that America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, the MI6 together “rendered” terror suspects to Libya on numerous occasions. The individuals were then allegedly subjected to acts of torture. The find of the huge cache of documents and its contents contradict previous denials issued by both governments denying involvement in the “renditioning” of terror suspects.


Rendition


Rendition involves the abduction and transfer of individuals from one jurisdiction to another and beyond the legal protection of the transferor state. If the allegations are substantiated, the actions of Britain and America will have contravened Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which prohibits State parties from “expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. Notably, the Convention was ratified by the UK on 8th December 1988 and the USA on 21st October 1994.

The evidence against the UK and USA is certainly stacking up. On 5th May 2011, the BBC reported in an article titled “Torture Inquiry to Examine UK-Libya Intelligence Links”, that the former Libya Foreign Minister under Gaddafi, Abdelati Obeidi had asserted that the MI6 was operational in Libya until February 2011. In addition, Mr Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a commander of anti-government forces in Tripoli and former terror suspect revealed that he was captured by the US in Bangkok, Thailand and taken to Libya by both the CIA and MI6 in 2004 where he was tortured. At present, the High Court is still seised of a case brought by Omar Awadh Omar who alleges that he was “rendered” to Uganda in 2010 after being kidnapped in Kenya. In his claim, Mr Awadh alleges that he suffered physical abuse from British and American interrogators. He alleges that he was threatened, beaten, punched and slapped during the course of the interrogation.


The Baha Mousa Inquiry


These disturbing reports come on the heels of “The Report of the Baha Mousa Inquiry” released on 8th September 2011 which investigated the assault of detainees by UK soldiers guarding them. Baha Mousa was an Iraqi man who was tortured and beaten to death in British Army custody in Basra, Iraq in September 2003. The Inquiry surmised that the victims of the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment (1QLR) suffered an “appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence”. The subsequent post-mortem found that Baha Mousa had sustained 93 external injuries in addition to internal injuries including fractured ribs.

The incidents highlighted above can hardly be said to be the isolated incidents the UK and USA would have us believe. Amnesty International’s 2010 Report, “Open Secret: Mounting Evidence of Europe’s Complicity in Rendition and Secret Detention”, revealed that several European countries including Italy, Germany, Poland and others had co-operated in the rendition of terror suspects. It has also been difficult to verify whether these flights transporting individuals to 2nd or indeed 3rd States for the purpose of circumventing legislation against torture have ceased. Worryingly, Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the family of Baha Mousa, asserts that the actions which led to the deaths of Baha Mousa are not a one-off as claimed by the UK military authorities. In an article published in The Guardian on 8th September 2011 and titled “Baha Mousa: Killed in the Shadows”, Phil Shiner asserts that he also acts for about 151 Iraqis who were tortured and abused in 14 different UK Army facilities and by different battle groups. The acts of torture perpetrated on these individuals were said to include mock executions, threats of rape, sleep deprivation, temperature manipulation and solitary confinement for long periods of time.



Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay


The furore arising from the Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay Detention camp episodes have hardly been extinguished before the recent spate of rendition and torture scandals erupted. One recalls the horrid reports of the many human rights violations including torture, rape and sexual abuse meted out by the US and UK Armies to prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In addition, it is impossible to forget the lurid reports of torture, beating and poor prisoner conditions in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp which has been used since 2002 to hold detainees from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also significant that the detention camp still remains open despite President Obama’s pre-election promise to close it if he assumes the post of President of the USA. Also, although the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has ordered an inquiry into “the relations between the British and Libyan services”, the fact that 14 or so soldiers involved in the torture of Baha Mousa and other Iraqis are still serving is ammunition enough for those who decry the hypocrisy of the West. It is also significant to mention that the inquiry found that some senior officers were aware of the abuses. This revelation may suggest that the attitudes displayed by the soldiers may be more deep rooted within the military institution than previously thought.


The Future


The flagrant violation of international human rights laws and the Geneva Convention against Torture and Inhuman Treatment by the US and UK hardly sets an example to countries who have been at the receiving end of “lectures” delivered by leaders of the so called “first world”. Undoubtedly, half-hearted attempts via inquiries and investigations sanctioned to address allegations of torture, rendition and other human rights abuses will be seen by countries where these illegal practices take place as legitimising the actions. After all, if it is acceptable by the UK and USA, why should it not be the same for the likes of Bahrain, Pakistan, Uganda et al. The danger however is that these acts of torture, if left unchecked, will become an even more effective recruiting tool for extremists than the speeches and teachings of the leaders of these groups.

WILL THE ARAB SPRING BIRTH THE EAGERLY ANTICIPATED SUB-SAHARAN SUMMER?

The death of Mohammed Bouazizi in Tunisia in January 2011 gave birth to the series of protests and uprisings now globally referred to as the “Arab Spring”. The 26-year-old street vendor set fire to himself in protest following the confiscation of his wares and harassment allegedly suffered at the hands of Tunisian authorities. Mr Bouazizi suffered severe burns to over 90% of his body and later succumbed to the injuries sustained a few weeks later.

It is perhaps certain that no one, not even Mohammed Bouazizi, expected the magnitude of seismic waves which was generated following that one significant act of expression of frustration. It is also no exaggeration to proffer that Mr Bouazizi’s actions have resulted in a permanent shift of the tectonic plates constituting the foundation of the history of the Arab world. The demonstrations and protests which ensued in the aftermath of the death have led to the overthrow of the Tunisian President, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. Elsewhere in the Arab world, Muammar Gaddafi’s attempts to violently contain peaceful protests in Libya eventually resulted in his overthrow by a group of heavily backed western-assisted rebels who are at present, in the process of forming a transitional government. The uprising does not end there as the leaders of Syria, Yemen and Bahrain are still in the process of containing their own revolutions.

Certainly, the circumstances which were and still are present at the time, and which led to the revolution - economic deprivation, unemployment, poverty, human rights violations and dictatorships - also exist in Sub-Saharan Africa. For instance, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbagogo of Equatorial Guinea has been in charge since 1979 after coming to power by way of a coup. Aside the country making a presence in the top 12 of the Transparency International compiled list of most corrupt countries, the United Nations (UN) have reported that less than half of the population has access to clean drinking water and that 20 percent of children in the country die before the age of five.

The Republic of Chad in the Western part of Africa has fared no better. According to the BBC, the country, which is Africa’s fifth-largest nation, suffers from inadequate infrastructure and internal conflict. The country which has been ruled by Idriss Deby for 21 years and his reign has coincided with unprecedented levels of poverty and poor health, as well as debilitating social and economic conditions. The poor standard of living present in the Republic of Chad is identical to the conditions which have festered in Eritrea during the course of President Isaias Afeweki’s 18 year reign and in Yahya Jammeh’s Gambia during his 17 year term.

Following the overthrow of Ben Ali of Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, there remain 17 African leaders who have served terms of between 11 to 32 years in power. These leaders can also hardly be said to have assumed power by way of free and fair democratic elections. It should however not be forgotten that the people of Zimbabwe and most recently Uganda have engaged in peaceful protests against poor living conditions, spiralling levels of poverty and rising costs of living. Unsurprisingly, these protests have been brutally suppressed by their leaders. However, Laurent Gbagbo’s overthrow as President of the Ivory Coast after over a decade in power is perhaps an indication that Sub-Saharan Africans, like their North African and Arab neighbours, also thirst for the waters of democracy. At present however, it remains to be seen whether the Arab Spring, unwittingly sparked by Mohammed Bouazizi, will birth the eagerly anticipated Sub-Saharan summer.

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, ITS DETRACTORS AND ITS FUTURE

On 15 September 2011, the Non-Governmental Organisation, Human Rights Watch (HRW), published its long-awaited report on the effectiveness of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting cases since its founding treaty, the Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002.

The 50-page report titled,“Unfinished Business: Closing Gaps in the Selection of ICC Cases," questioned the effectiveness of the ICC Prosecutor’s office in delivering justice. The investigation, which was based on information garnered from the close monitoring of the ICC over the last eight years and Human Rights Watch’s country investigators, reveal that only a miniscule 17 arrest warrants and nine voluntary summons have been issued following investigations in six countries – Central African Republic, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Uganda and lately Libya – and these have only resulted in 10 cases and trials.

The content of the report pass a damning verdict on the world’s first permanent treaty based international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against aggression. The report is also far from complimentary about the work carried out by the office of the prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

Amongst the criticisms levelled at the ICC are claims that its investigations and prosecutions have failed to demonstrate coherent and effective strategies for delivering meaningful justice to affected communities. It goes without saying that issues such as the prolonged trials of the Democratic Republic of Congo suspects in custody, some of which are far from conclusion and the arrest warrant issued for one of the chief perpetrators, Bosco Ntaganda, which is still yet to be executed does little to lend to the credibility of the ICC or to pacify its critics.

Perhaps the most damaging criticism of the ICC relates to its perceived impartiality and unfairness in prosecuting cases. The ICC is alleged to have deliberately avoided targeting military and civilian authorities for prosecution for political reasons on several occasions whilst carrying out some of their investigations. Thus it is inexplicable that the ICC have investigated and issued arrest warrants for the rebel group Lords Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony which is alleged to have abducted children, terrorised, mutilated and killed civilians during its long running conflict with the Uganda government. The ICC have however failed to issue arrest warrants against the Ugandan government who are strongly alleged to have beaten, detained and tortured civilians alleged to be “rebel collaborators”.

The same can also be said lately of Libya where the ICC Prosecutor opened an investigation into the actions of the previous government led by Muammar Gaddafi whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to the wide scale crimes alleged to have been committed by the fighters and leaders of the newly constituted National Transitional Council during the recent civil war. These criticisms do not end at just those levelled by the HRW report. Significantly, Elizabeth Evenson, in her article “Gaddafi prosecution can help ICC complete unfinished business”, published in the Guardian avers that some ICC investigations have often bypassed major perpetrators of the crimes. Hence only the Sudanese President and a few others have been indicted for the commission of mass crimes in Darfur although HRW and various NGOs have clearly identified other significant players. Issues such as this lend credence to the opinion that the ICC is clearly falling short of fulfilling its remit of prosecuting those responsible for grave crimes.

Although the Court has had its share of detractors and critics, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) October 2010 report - “UN Mapping Report” - states that the ICC’s activities in the Congo have contributed to reopening the debate on the fight against impunity in the Congo; in turn, this has given hope to the victims of the violations committed in the region. Also, contrary to the views of some commentators that the indictment of the Sudanese President may damage and undermine the prospects for peace in Darfur, Darfuris have particularly embraced the ICC’s attempts at bringing the Sudanese government to justice. In an article published by the Human Rights advocacy group, Waging Peace, and titled “The ICC and its critics”, the Secretary-General of the Darfur Union in the UK, Khatir Kayabil, expressed huge support for the work of the ICC. Mr Kayabil stated: “We are the victims of the crimes for which President Bashir has been charged and we don’t want this brute appeased. We need justice and we need to be heard”.

In truth, the ICC is hindered by the unbounded ambitions of its Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Thus while the Prosecutor’s intentions to open new investigations into mass crimes in Libya and the Ivory Coast is noteworthy, one cannot help but feel that these new investigations will come at the expense of ongoing prosecutions and investigations which are far from being concluded. If the ICC is to regain its credibility or to be seen by victims of violations to be delivering justice, the need for taking on new prosecutions and investigations must be balanced against the resources available to the ICC for prosecuting and closing cases.

It is also vital that states parties provide the necessary resources, be it financial, political or otherwise, to enable the ICC achieve its aims; without states parties support, it will virtually be impossible for the ICC to operate and to execute its mandate. Also, the choice of investigation and prosecutions initiated by the ICC has drawn the wrath of African leaders who note that only Africans have been indicted thus far by the Court. Perhaps it is also logical to question why the leaders of Sudan and Libya have been indicted by the Court while those of Burma, the United States of America and the United Kingdom – on the basis of crimes committed in Iraq – have not been investigated. Although these countries have not ratified the Statute of the Court, the same applies to Libya and Sudan, albeit in these cases, the United Nations Security Council referred the question to the Court. It is however unlikely that the cases against the UK or the USA will be referred to the UN Security Council as both sit as members on the Council; therefore, it is unlikely that the fears of the African leaders may be allayed any time in the immediate future or at all.

In conclusion, it is hoped that the recommendations made by HRW is adopted by the ICC if the Court is to ensure that the perpetrators of mass crimes will no longer evade justice. The ICC states parties are expected to elect a new Prosecutor at their next annual session in December 2011. The communities who have been subjected to mass crimes, victims and the world wait with bated breath in anticipation that the new Prosecutor will add significantly to the limited gains made by the incumbent. 1worldinternational certainly hopes that the new Prosecutor heeds the mantra that quality, and not quantity only will revive the ailing fortunes of the ICC.

PRECEDENT SET BY THE LIBYA INTERVENTION OPENS WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR DARFUR

On 19 March 2011, a coalition of seventeen states led by France and the United Kingdom commenced military action in Libya to enforce United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. The action was taken in response to the Gaddafi regime’s attempts to suppress peaceful protests by means which have included the discharging of live ammunition into crowds of protesters by ground forces and helicopters.

The resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (S/RES/1973) empowered the coalition to amongst others, impose a no-fly zone over Libya and to use all necessary means to protect civilians in the process; further, the resolution demanded an immediate ceasefire and a cessation of attacks on civilians. In addition, an arms embargo was imposed on the regime, as well as an asset freeze on assets owned by Libyan authorities.

The United Nations (UN) and the coalition’s actions are clearly at odds with global response to the conflict in Darfur, Sudan which has lasted longer than the Second World War. Some may argue that the actions of the UN display selectivity and inconsistency in their approach to tackling circumstances and situations where mass crimes such as crimes against humanity and genocide et al are alleged to have been committed or are being committed. Hence the cries that the crises which led to the Libya intervention is no dissimilar from the suppression in Syria, the events which have occurred in recent times in Zimbabwe or the genocide, as recognised by the UN Human Rights Council, in Darfur, Sudan.

According to the UN, the war in Darfur has claimed more than 400.000 lives and has displaced over 2,500,000 people. The war mushroomed from decades-long conflicts between African farmers and nomadic tribes. In 2003 however, two rebel groups – The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) - became engaged in an armed struggle against the government claiming that the government had left its people defenceless against Arab attackers and further claims that the African constituents of the country had been marginalised by the Arab dominated government. The government in response procured the services of armed Arab militia, locally referred to as ‘Janjaweed ‘which translates into ‘devils on horsebacks’.

The UN and the international community as a whole have failed to summon the willpower equivalent to that exhibited lately in toppling the Libya regime with regard to the Darfur crisis. To date the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) indictment of the country’s leader, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Sudanese Minister of State for the Interior, Ahmad Hasan and the Janjaweed militia leader, Ali Kashayb for mass crimes including genocide, crimes against humanity, torture and rape remains the most significant step taken by the international community to protect Darfur. Critics may even argue that the ICC’s arrest warrant is a token gesture given that the warrant has not been enforced, that the court’s jurisdiction is not accepted by many countries, and that questions regarding the court’s legitimacy are unstinting.

Recent reports of further human rights abuses committed by the government of Sudan in Darfur give further cause for alarm. In its 28-page report, “Darfur in the Shadows: The Sudanese Government’s Ongoing Attacks on Civilians and Human Rights”, the NGO, Human Rights Watch reported “a surge in government-led attacks on populated areas and a campaign of aerial bombing which had killed and injured scores of civilians, destroyed property and displaced more than 70,000”. Human Rights Watch also surmised, from their interviews of witnesses and victims of the attacks, government officials, villagers and displaced persons, that the crimes were unequivocally linked to government forces or militia working in tandem with the government.

It is impossible to explain the UN and the international community’s staggered response to the conflict in Darfur while it has reacted unreservedly and with unprecedented consensus in deposing Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal regime. Of course the majority of observers would prefer a peaceful resolution to the crisis, possibly one which involves something similar to the January 2011 referendum which saw the South of Sudan overwhelmingly vote in favour of becoming a self-governing nation. It is however unlikely that the government of Sudan would readily relent thus making Darfur the world’s newest country, the 55th African nation, the 194th UN member state and the 197th country of the world. It is clear that intervention, akin to that of Libya is long overdue based on the mass crimes of genocide wantonly perpetrated by the government and which has been recognised by the UN as such. In the alternative, it will be left for the international community and the UN to explain why what is good for Libya has as yet, not been deemed good enough for the Dafuri people.

MOSQUITOES RESISTANT TO INSECTICIDE-TREATED BED NETS, SCIENTISTS FEAR

Mosquitoes are rapidly developing resistance to insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs), according to a group of 18 research scientists led by Jean-Francois Trape from the Institut de Researche pour le Developpment and the Pasteur Institute of Dakar.

The results of the study is an important development in the fight against the deadly disease malaria as insecticide-treated nets were previously thought to be the most effective method of reducing malaria morbidity, mortality and prevalence around the world. The researchers surmise in their study reported by the British Journal, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, that the “findings are of great concern” not least because “they support the idea that insecticide resistance might not permit a substantial decrease in malaria morbidity in many parts of Africa where Anopheles gambiae (the most common species of malaria spreading mosquito in Africa) is a vector.”

The results of the study conducted in Dielmo, Senegal between January 2007 and December 2010 aimed to assess the effect of the distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and combination therapies on malaria morbidity, mosquito populations and infections. The scientists monitored inhabitants for the disease in the first year and a half of the programme. In July 2008, the scientists then offered long-lasting insecticide (Deltamethrin) treated nets to all the villagers.

The results of the study showed that the incidence of malaria was 13 times lower than before the nets were introduced. Further, the proportion of the Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes resistant to Deltamethrin, the chemical advocated by the WHO for use on the bed nets, was 37%. The study also found that the incidence of the disease rose to significant levels during the last few months of the study. In essence, the reports of malaria attacks were higher than recorded rates prior to the introduction of the ITNs. The researchers attributed this marked spike in disease incidence rates, especially in older children and adults, to the increasing resistance of A. gambiae mosquitoes to insecticides allied with loss of immunity or reduced immunity when the mosquito population declined.

Inevitably, the results of the study bears serious implications on the global fight against the spread of the disease especially if the Millennium Development Goals target of reversing the incidence of malaria by 2015 is to be achieved. ITNs were thought to be the most effective method of preventing the disease which is prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and to a lesser extent the Middle East and parts of Europe. The disease is also said to infect between 400 and 500 million people a year and also kills nearly two million people yearly; 90% of these deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa.

The use of ITNs has resulted in a reduction of malaria incidence, morbidity and prevalence rates. UNICEF states that between 2004 and 2010, more than 400 million nets were delivered to malaria-endemic countries, with 290 million delivered since 2008 alone. It also states that this has led to the reduction in global malaria deaths by 20 per cent between 2000 and 2009.

However, John Keating and Thomas P. Eisele; both of the Department of Global Health Systems & Development at Tulane University, New Orleans aver that the results of the survey should be assimilated with caution. The researchers point to the relatively short duration of the research (3 – 4 years) which inhibits the assessment of long-term shifts and transmission of malaria epidemiology. An additional unanswered question they state regards how quickly a person previously exposed to malaria (before use of ITNs) loses their acquired immunity. The researchers add that this becomes an even more important issue especially in the case of adults who have experienced decades of exposure in endemic areas. Also, the fact that the study was conducted in a single village and further over a short period of time is said to be a limitation of the study, not least because it may thus be impossible to generalise its findings across Africa.

Despite these criticisms, the resurgence in malaria mortality in Rwanda, Sao Tome and Zambia since 2009 perhaps lends credence to the researchers’ fears. Worryingly, the prevalence of malaria in Kenya has increased in the last 3 years, according to a government survey. The survey indicates an overall malaria prevalence rate of 11% at present, with the disease affecting about 8% of all children under 5 years, compared with 3% in 2007. Interestingly, these countries have all implemented programmes aimed at distributing the WHO endorsed ITNs to their population.

Against this background it is perhaps now, and more than ever before necessary for scientists and researchers to develop effective malaria prevention and control strategies which protect individuals in endemic areas and which also reduces the speed of transmission of the disease. Therefore recent news that the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative is to collaborate with Glaxosmithkline (GSK) & Crucell in development of second-generation malaria vaccine is heart warming. At the time of writing, the RTS,S vaccine candidate is in the midst of a large-scale phase 3 clinical efficacy trial. The WHO anticipates that a policy recommendation for RTS,S may be possible by early as 2015. Dr Christian Loucq, director of PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, states that: “for the first time, we have a malaria vaccine in late phase development.” He adds that the new approach has the potential to “move us closer to the internationally agreed upon goal of an 80% effective second-generation vaccine by 2025.” It is no doubt hoped that development of a vaccine can be accelerated and made available and accessible to the developing world in the near future. Without this, the air of victory over malaria which currently pervades is just as likely to revert back into the sense of helplessness which previously abounded.

ANTI HIV VACCINE: NEW DAWN OR FALSE HOPE?

Eleven years ago, world leaders affirmed via the United Nations endorsed Millennium Development document, an obligation to protect children and the most vulnerable people in the world. One of the eight constituent declarations of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) pledged to utilise all available resources to “halt and reverse the spread of HIV.”

Despite this assurance provided by the world leaders and the resources, financial and otherwise, channelled into the global fight against the epidemic, millions of people around the world are still living with and dying from the disease. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recent A New Health Sector Agenda for HIV/AIDS study reveals that over 60 million people have been infected with HIV while 25 million people have died of AIDS since the epidemic began. UNICEF also estimates that around 4.3 to 5.9 million young people aged between 15 and 24 were living with HIV in 2009.

To date, the bulk of the treatment available and administered to people infected with HIV are post-exposure prophylaxis (i.e. administered immediately after exposure) rather than preventative. Although there are currently no available vaccines for HIV, a HIV vaccine is considered the most effective means, or indeed the only means by which the AIDS pandemic can be eradicated.

However, Professor Julian Ma, the joint head of the infection and immunity research centre at St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London may yet lead his team to the development of the ever elusive HIV vaccine which may end the condemnation of millions of people to needless suffering and early death caused by HIV.

In an interview published by The Observer in August 2011, Professor Ma explains how the process of modifying plant proteins can hugely reduce the cost of new drugs. The Pharma-Planta project, which has been given permission by the UK medical regulator, the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to carry out human trials of a monoclonal antibody grown in tobacco plants that can be used to prevent HIV infection, aims to neutralise the virus before it can cause the infection.

Professor Ma explains that tobacco was chosen for several reasons namely that its seeds are dehydrated protein-storage bodies, that the plant is not part of the food chain, and thirdly because it produces a huge amount of biomass. Professor Ma asserts that the anti-HIV antibody will be used in combination with one or two antibodies to prevent the potential of the virus gaining resistance to the constantly mutating virus.

Encouragingly for the developing world and aid agencies working within affected regions around the world, the early drug development stage of the new tobacco- produced antiviral drug is expected to be cheaper than that required by drugs produced via conventional means. It is no doubt hoped that a vaccine is developed to prevent more infections and deaths from HIV. Undoubtedly, aid campaigners will certainly echo the sentiments espoused by the present writer which avers that it is revivifying to contemplate that the goal of producing an affordable HIV eradicating vaccine is not as unattainable as was previously thought.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: GIFT OR CURSE?

The incorporation of the Human Rights Act 1998 into the United Kingdom’s domestic legislation was intended to bolster individual rights and freedoms against abuse by bodies exercising public functions. Undoubtedly an ideological masterpiece, it has always been the subject of intense criticism and scrutiny unsurprisingly led by the conservative right, eurosceptics, neocons and the red-top tabloid press. Notably, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, in an interview with The Sun’s former political editor, George Pascoe-Watson prior to assuming power promised to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. In an article written by the political commentator Peter Oborne in 2009 entitled Enough Poison about the Human Rights Act: Churchill’s Legacy, the eminent writer claims that the Conservatives are hostile to the Act as it is predominantly viewed by right leaning stalwarts as a Charter for socialism and state intervention as well as an attempt to insinuate into the British legal system a leftwing social and political agenda. While some criticisms levelled against the Act may be justified, the current writer argues that the majority of its perceived limitations generally stems from its ambiguity as a concept and misunderstanding by critics.


Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act came into force on 2nd October 2000 and incorporates into United Kingdom law rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. Pre-incorporation of the Act, respected law Lord, Lord Bingham proffered that the passing of the Act would enhance the protection of civil rights and freedoms. In his words, “it would restore our country to its former place as an international standard bearer of liberty and justice.” The Human Rights Act’s intended purpose was its enshrinement in domestic law of the European Convention of Human Rights which sets out a series of basic human rights to which all individuals within the European Union were to be entitled. The Act’s provisions makes it unlawful for a public authority such as a government department, local authority or the police to breach the rights conferred on individuals by the Convention. In other words, the enactment of the Human Rights Act confers a duty on all public authorities to ensure that the sum total of their actions are compatible with Convention rights unless an Act of Parliament makes that impossible. Prior to the enactment of the Act, individuals claiming a breach of its provisions faced the overly burdensome and onerous task of attending the premises of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France in order to seek redress; however, individuals now have recourse to justice through the United Kingdom’s Courts and Tribunal systems.

Critics – British Bill of Rights?

Its reception by the media and politicians however has been disparaging at best. Its fiercest critics argue amongst others, that it encourages a compensation culture, results in costly litigation to the detriment of the State as well as stifling journalistic freedom. Perhaps the most damaging criticism is that it undermines national security and public safety. Largely as a result of these criticisms, the current Prime Minister, David Cameron and his predecessor as Tory leader Michael Howard have both advocated the replacement of the Act with a British Bill of Rights and Duties. The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has also questioned the credibility of the Act. In advocating the enactment of a British Bill of Rights, he remarked that: “there was no reason why the courts should be bound by Strasbourg court’s jurisprudence if their own interpretation is different.” In addition, the Home Secretary, Theresa May reiterated the Conservative party’s stance towards the Act in asserting that “we did say we thought it wasn’t working, and we are discussing with our coalition partners what we will be doing in that area”. The antipathy towards the Act is not consigned to the right side of the political spectrum. The former Home Secretary under the Labour government, Charles Clarke in a veiled attack on the judiciary following his perceived misapplication of the Act by the judges, commented that ‘the judiciary bear not the slightest responsibility for protecting the public and sometimes seem utterly unaware of the implication of their decisions for our society’.


Public Opinion

Additional evidence suggests that the Act has also woefully failed to capture public imagination. Research conducted and published by the BBC on 12th January 2008 revealed that the majority of Britons think that the Human Rights Act is being abused by people especially immigrants and asylum seekers. Further, the same survey which was compiled and published by the Ministry of Justice in 2004 revealed that 57% of individuals polled believe that the Act was being exploited, especially by immigrants and asylum seekers. The public furore spawn as a result of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission’s ruling on 18th May 2010 that two terror suspects (Abid Naseer and Ahmed Faraz Khan) could not be sent back to Pakistan because of the threat of ill treatment, torture or death at the hands of the authorities has hardly dissipated. As a result, the Act has been blamed by its opponents for the perceived obstacle it constitutes as an instrument in the country’s fight against terrorism as well as an example of the misconceived idea that the rights of foreigners supersedes those of indigenes under the Act.


Unfair Criticism?

Dealing with these criticisms, it is important to note that both terror suspects and their legal representatives were not permitted to view evidence upon which the Court relied at the first instance. Additionally, the Court highlighted the practical impossibility of the deportation of both suspects to Pakistan where terrorist suspects face torture and death following their public identification and vilification as terror suspects by the media in the United Kingdom. In continuum, it is important to note that rather than stifle journalistic freedom, public opinion is generally favourable towards Article 8 which aims to protect citizens from disproportionate media intrusion on their liberties. Also, costly litigation has largely been brought about by maladministration and poor decision-making. There will inevitably be fewer challenges and delays to the judicial system if the initial decision-making process is improved. Moreover, there is no clear evidence of any increase in compensation as feared by the public and erroneously amplified by the media since the incorporation of the Act. Undeniably the decision to allow nine Afghan hijackers to remain and work in the United Kingdom in S & Others (on the application of) v. SSHD bewildered even the most fervent proponents of the Act. An alternative decision however would not only have violated and contravened international legal instruments advocating against the return of asylum seekers to countries where they face ill treatment, torture and death, but would have also jeopardised the United Kingdom’s standing as the international standard bearer of liberty and justice. In addition, an alternative outcome – returning the individuals to Afghanistan – is neither rational nor a proportionate response to the legitimate aims of ensuring a firm and fair immigration policy.


Support

Encouragingly for the proponents of the Act, the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg lent his support to the advocates of the Act in The Times’ publication of 19th May 2010. The Deputy Prime Minister, possibly in response to the assertions of his coalition partners, David Cameron, Theresa May and Dominic Grieve surmised that any government would tamper with the Human Rights Act “at its peril”. Nick Clegg added that the decision about whether to introduce the British Bill of Rights aimed at supplanting the European Convention of Human Rights is to be passed to an independent committee. It is also worthwhile to note that in spite of the Attorney General’s reservations towards the Act, Dominic Grieve has voiced opposition towards the idea of Britain’s total withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights. It is also rational to surmise that some of its criticisms stem from its misunderstanding as a concept by the public and its misapplication in some circumstances which has resulted in too much attention being paid to individual rights at the expense of the interests of the wider community. Hence the rights conferred on individuals by the Act are readily forgotten in the face of public outcries in response to unfavourable rulings made by the Judiciary against public bodies accused of violating rights. For instance Article 10’s right to free expression is of immense benefit to journalists, television and radio reporters and the media who are all free to criticise the state and political parties and also, must be able to report news and current affairs fearlessly. Article 14’s freedom from discrimination guarantees equal access to all other rights enshrined in the Convention regardless of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political affiliation et al. In addition Article 6 also enshrines the right to a fair trial which is a key feature in any democratic society. Even to the most ardent critic, it is unarguable that these rights are essential to the protection of the principle of democracy.

Final Rites?

In conclusion, it is premature to pronounce final rites on the Act because decisions unfavourable to the government, politicians and the media have resulted from the application of the Act. It is hastily forgotten that before its incorporation, it was virtually impossible to obtain redress over Acts passed by Parliament. The erroneous decision to abolish the Act in the writer’s opinion will unduly stifle an individual’s ability to seek redress where a public body is alleged to have encroached on individual freedoms. Further, individuals can now rely on ambiguous terms such as family life, privacy, inhumane treatment and the right to liberty in asserting their rights. Also, it is worth noting that the public enquiry into racism at the Yarlswood offenders’ institution, and challenges to the indefinite detentions of foreign nationals without charge were only possible following the incorporation of the Act. Peter Oborne argues that despite the Tory’s publicly aired exasperations against the Act, the Tories have fought important battles for personal freedom, for instance opposing the 42-day detention of suspects without charge, opposing ID cards, opposing unjust extradition, and the poorly designed European Arrest Warrant. In the view of the writer, the Human Rights Act would be subject to less criticism if previous Governments had ensured that the public and wider public sector were better informed about the benefits which the Act confers on ordinary people thereby debunking many of the myths which plague the concept of convention rights and the way they have been applied. It is unsurprising that the incorporation of the Act has coincided with the creation of judicial review, which has strengthened the decision-making process. Inevitably, the legitimacy and transparency of the decision-making process will be enhanced if greater emphasis is placed on the principle of rights protection. It is undeniable that the Human Rights Act is still the most adequate and complete legal instrument which ensures the maintenance of the balance between the interests of society and the protection of the rights of the individual.

FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: LESS TALK, MORE ACTION

Recent reports that Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) laws are to be toughened by the United Kingdom government is strong indication that the internationally endorsed battle against the perpetuation of the practice is far from won.


The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines FGM as “all procedures that involve the partial removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The practice of FGM is not expressly required by any religion. However, advocates for its continuance argue that it prepares women for adulthood and marriage, ensures pre-marital fidelity, and reduces a woman’s libido thus enabling her to resist “illicit” sexual acts.


Despite the creditable attempts made by international bodies such as the UN, WHO, UNICEF and Amnesty International at eradicating FGM, the WHO’s 2010 Report Global Strategy to Stop Health-Care Providers from Performing FGM revealed that the practice is still prevalent in 28 countries in Africa and the Middle East. These include Nigeria, Guinea, Kenya and Yemen. The WHO’s Eliminating FGM: An Interagency Statement also stated that about 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM. Further, an estimated 3 million girls are said to be at risk of undergoing the procedure every year.


Aside the fact that the practice violates several internationally endorsed legal instruments protecting the rights of girls worldwide – The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women and The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women – FGM is also associated with many health risks including infections, infertility, increased risk of childbirth complications, chronic pain, psychological problems and in extreme cases death.


However, it cannot be said that the west, international bodies and NGOs have sat idly by whilst the practice has prospered. Notably, there has been a marked reduction in the prevalence of the practice over the last 50 years. Several countries including Liberia, Ghana and Burkina Faso have criminalised the practice and have also successfully prosecuted individuals. The EU also marked the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation on 6th February 2011by condemning “the abhorrent practice that severely violates the human rights and the dignity of hundreds of thousands of women and girls.”


Encouragingly, the WHO’s campaign on the negative health implication of FGM in the developing world has led to a significant increase in the proportion of FGM operations carried out by trained health-care personnel. The organisation’s FGM and other Harmful Practices Report reveals a widespread practice of this new “medicalised” form of FGM. For instance 76% of FGM operations in Yemen in recent years were carried out by trained medical personnel, 65% in Mauritania and 46% in Kenya. However, critics argue that whilst immediate health consequences of the practice such as pain and bleeding may reduce as a result, victims rights are still being violated and the psychological effect on those subjected to the practice are not only unquantifiable, but are in many cases, irreversible.


Undoubtedly this deeply entrenched ancient practice will be impossible to eradicate without resources being invested in education, as well as wider publicity of its associated health risks within practising communities. In this vein, the UN should support international and national initiatives by providing financial support to educate individuals, families, communities and FGM practitioners of the health risks in order to dissuade them from the practice. Further, alternative jobs and sources of income should be made available to FGM practitioners to prevent them from returning to the profession. Perhaps the media should also be utilised as a means of publicising the health risks and to raise public awareness of the topic.


Additionally, strengthening enforcement and prosecution mechanisms in these communities should be of paramount importance. Therefore, penalties should be imposed on anyone including medical professionals, nurses and midwives who assist or are involved in carrying out the practice. The penalties should include long-term jail terms and significant fines to serve as a deterrent. Also, victims should be provided a means of seeking redress by bringing civil action against perpetrators. It goes without saying that these preventive and punitive measures will be impotent without the political will of the international community and national governments.