Web pages about "USA"

Hamdan sentenced by military commission

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:06:31 +0100

Salim Hamdan was sentenced on 7 August to five and a half years in prison at the first US military commission trial in Guantánamo Bay. The prosecution had asked for a sentence of not less than 30 years.

The day before, a panel of six US military officers had convicted Hamdan of “providing material support for terrorism” and acquitted him of “conspiracy”.

His sentence includes credit for the 61 months and eight days he has spent in detention at Guantánamo since he was first made eligible for trial in 2003. This was under the previous military commission system authorized by presidential order but subsequently ruled unlawful by the US Supreme Court in 2006.

In an ordinary justice system, this would mean that he would be released in less than five months time. On 5 August, however, the Pentagon suggested that Salim Hamdan would remain in indefinite detention as an “enemy combatant” regardless of the verdict.

Matt Pollard, legal adviser for Amnesty International, said Hamdan's conviction was based on a proceeding that "fundamentally failed to meet international fair trial standards."

"To impose any penalty based on it therefore could only aggravate the injustice of the trial and the other human rights violations during his many years of unlawful detention," he said.

The framework of laws and rules within which the military commissions operate is fundamentally at odds with international law, and has been criticized around the world. Nevertheless, it appears that the US authorities plan to press on, subjecting numerous more Guantánamo detainees to these unlawful procedures.

Amnesty International considers that the military commission system is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. The organization continues to campaign for any trials of Guantánamo detainees to be held in ordinary civilian courts in the USA, without resort to the death penalty, and for the Guantánamo detention facility to be shut down.

Mexican national executed in Texas

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:14:29 +0100

A Mexican national who was not informed of his right to consular assistance after his arrest, was executed in Texas on Tuesday 5 August.

José Medellín was put to death in violation of the USA’s international legal obligations and despite worldwide appeals for the execution to be stopped, including one from the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.

A last-minute appeal to the US Supreme Court was also unsuccessful, with the Court ruling 5-4 against a stay. The execution went ahead at around 10pm, about four hours later than scheduled.

One of the Justices dissenting from the refusal to stop the execution wrote that to allow it to go forward would leave the USA “irremediably in violation of international law and break our treaty promises”.

"The execution of José Ernesto Medellín Rojas by the state of Texas is a violation of international law," said Rob Freer, Amnesty International's researcher on USA. "It undermines the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which had ruled in favour of a stay of execution."

José Medellín was sentenced to death in 1994 for his part in the murders of two girls, 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena, in Houston in 1993.

Medellín was never advised by Texas authorities of his right as a detained foreign national to seek consular assistance, as required under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).

Because of this treaty violation, Medellín was deprived of the extensive assistance that Mexico provides for the defence of its citizens facing capital charges in the USA.

The Mexican Consulate did not learn about the case until nearly four years after Medellín’s arrest. By this time, his trial and the initial appeal affirming his conviction and death sentence had already concluded.

On 4 August 2008, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously voted against recommending that the state governor commute the death sentence or grant a reprieve.

Governor Rick Perry was left with the option of granting a 30-day stay of execution, and calling on the Board to reconsider, to comply with a recent ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He refused to do so.

The ICJ had ruled in 2004 that the USA violated its VCCR obligations in the cases of José Medellín and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in the USA. The ICJ ordered the USA to provide judicial “review and reconsideration” of the convictions and sentences, to determine if the defendants had been prejudiced by the VCCR violations.

In March this year, the US Supreme Court found that the ICJ’s decision “constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.” However, a 6-3 majority ruled that the ICJ’s decision “is not automatically binding domestic law” and that the authority for implementing it rested with the US Congress.

Efforts within Congress to pass implementing legislation stalled, but Texas pursued the execution date it had set for José Medellín’s execution. The ICJ ordered the US government to "take all measures necessary" to halt his execution.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was among those who appealed for the execution to be stopped: “All decisions and orders of the International Court of Justice must be respected by states”, he is reported as saying on television in Mexico City, where he was attending an AIDS conference.

The Government of Mexico issued a statement after the execution, which it said had been carried out “in clear contempt” of the ICJ order.

The statement continued: “The Government of Mexico sent the US Department of State a diplomatic note of protest for this violation of international law, expressing its concern for the precedent that it may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country.

“The Ministry of Foreign Relations reiterates that the importance of this case fundamentally stems from the respect to the right to consular access and protection provided by consulates of every State to each of its nationals abroad”.

Hamdan convicted at Guantánamo

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:30:25 +0100

Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni national, has been convicted by a panel of six US military officers of "providing material support for terrorism", but acquitted of "conspiracy". The Pentagon had, however, confirmed yesterday that he would remain in indefinite detention as an "enemy combatant" regardless of the verdict.

Amnesty International believes that the conviction under procedures that do not meet international fair trial standards compounds the injustice of his more than five years' unlawful detention in Guantánamo.

"We have consistently called for justice and security to be pursued within a framework of strict adherence to international law; however the US government has systematically failed in this regard," said Rob Freer, Amnesty International's researcher on the USA.

Amnesty International has said that the entire military commission system is fundamentally flawed and that the tribunals should be abandoned in all cases. The organisation continues to campaign for trials of Guantánamo detainees to be held in ordinary civilian courts in the USA, without resort to the death penalty, and for the Guantánamo detention facility to be shut down.

The sentencing hearing is due to begin today. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Hamdan: Unfair trial compounds injustice of unlawful detention

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:41:12 +0100

"The conviction of Salim Hamdan under procedures that do not meet international fair trial standards compounds the injustice of his more than five years' unlawful detention in Guantánamo," said Amnesty International today.

Amnesty International believes that the entire military commission system is fundamentally flawed and that the tribunals should be abandoned in all cases. The organisation continues to campaign for trials of Guantánamo detainees to be held in ordinary civilian courts in the USA, without resort to the death penalty, and for the Guantánamo detention facility to be shut down.

"We have consistently called for justice and security to be pursued within a framework of strict adherence to international law; however the US government has systematically failed in this regard," said Rob Freer, Amnesty International's researcher on the USA.

Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni national, was convicted by a panel of six US military officers of “providing material support for terrorism” and acquitted of “conspiracy”. The Pentagon had confirmed yesterday that he would remain in indefinite detention as an “enemy combatant” regardless of the verdict.

The sentencing hearing is due to begin today. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

For further information, click here to see: USA: Trial and error - a reflection on the first week of the first military commission trial at Guantánamo, 30 July 2008.

Video: Observing Guantánamo's hearings

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:19:58 +0100

Video placeholder

Following the conviction of Salim Hamdan at Guantánamo Bay, Matthew Pollard discussed the trial:

Video placeholder

USA: Texas execution violates international law

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 19:06:52 +0100

"The execution of José Ernesto Medellín Rojas by the state of Texas is a violation of international law," said Amnesty International today. "It undermines the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which had ruled in favour of a stay of execution."

One of the US Supreme Court Justices, hearing the last-minute appeal for a stay of execution yesterday, said that to allow the execution to go forward would leave the USA “irremediably in violation of international law and break our treaty promises”. The appeal was lost by 5 votes to 4 and the execution took place shortly afterwards.

It followed worldwide appeals for Medellín's death sentence to be commuted, including from the United Nations Secretary-General, who had called on states to respect the decisions and orders of the International Court of Justice.

This is the 1,116th execution in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977. Texas accounts for 410 of them. There have now been 17 executions in the USA this year, five of them in Texas.

Amnesty International unconditionally opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases and under any circumstances, since it violates the right to life and by its very nature constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

Background
On 4 August 2008 the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles unanimously voted against recommending that the state governor commute the death sentence or a grant a reprieve. A last-minute appeal to the US Supreme Court on 5 August 2008 was unsuccessful. Shortly afterwards, the execution was carried out, just before 10pm, about fours later than it had been scheduled.

On 16 July 2008 the ICJ ordered the United States “to take all measures necessary” to ensure that José Ernesto Medellín Rojas and 4 other Mexicans were “not executed… unless and until these five Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration.” The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also issued “precautionary measures” calling on Texas not to execute José Medellín until the Commission has ruled on his petition asserting that he was deprived of a fair trial.

On 25 March 2008, in Medellín v. Texas, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the ICJ’s decision “constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States.”

José Medellín was sentenced to death in 1994 for his part in the murders of two girls, 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena, in Houston in 1993. José Medellín was never advised by Texas authorities of his right as a detained foreign national to seek consular assistance, as required under article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).

Amnesty International's Urgent Action, issued in July 2008, resulted in hundreds of people sending appeals to Texas from around the world, see

Observing Guantánamo's military commission hearings (Part 2)

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:33:58 +0100

On 21 July 2008, the first trial to take place before a military commission convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 opened at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Matthew Pollard, Amnesty International's legal advisor, was present to observe the proceedings.

In the second part of a two-part series, he describes the hearings and discusses the reasons for his being in Guantánamo.

Tell us more about your role as an observer at the hearings. Why is it important that you are there?

My primary role as an observer at the hearings is to document any aspects of the actual proceedings that may affect their fairness. The framework of legislation (Military Commissions Act 2006) and rules (the “Manual for Military Commissions”) under which the commissions operate mean that no matter what happens at the actual trial, subjecting detainees to the process clearly violates their human rights.

However, what actually happens at the trial is still important. For instance, rulings by the military judge have the potential either to mitigate somewhat the fundamental unfairness inherent in the system or to make it far worse. It is important for Amnesty International to be here to see which direction, within the available room for manoeuvre, the rulings go.

Actions or reactions on the part of the commission members, witnesses, and lawyers at the trial, as well as the physical and psychological environment in which it takes place, may also either render it even more unfair or mitigate the unfairness written into the system.

The evidence that is presented at the hearing of an accused also has the potential to reveal both violations of human rights or humanitarian law committed by persons acting on behalf of states, and abuses of human rights or violations of humanitarian law committed by non-state actors including armed groups.

However, in the latter respect, Amnesty International must exercise extra caution as some of the unfair aspects of these proceedings allow the admission of evidence that is itself obtained in violation of human rights, which would not therefore form a sound or acceptable basis for reaching any conclusions.

Where are the hearings being held?

The room where the hearings I am observing are held is designed to resemble an ordinary courtroom in the United States. Of course, it still looks somewhat different, as the people providing security are all in military uniform, as are the members of the jury and some of the lawyers.

I understand, however, that the second courtroom, which was purpose-built for hearings involving "high value detainees" is somewhat more unusual, in that it isolates the audience physically in a sound-proof chamber, and all audio is delayed in order to allow the military judge or national security official to cut the sound if they consider something covered by national security secrecy has been said.

Is the way in which the military commission hearings are held different from the way in which other hearings, both in the USA and in other countries, are held?

Yes, the military commission hearings are very different from ordinary civilian and military hearings in the US, in that many of the fundamental guarantees needed for a trial to be truly fair are missing or undermined. While certain improvements have been won over the last few years, the current military commission system still allows the effects of much of the lawlessness and abuse that forms the overall context within which the commissions operate to remain concealed from the public and to go without remedy or redress.

For instance, the rules of evidence are very different. Statements that were obtained through coercion can be used in the military commissions, including some obtained through cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and perhaps even (depending on how the legislation and rules are ultimately interpreted) conduct considered under international law to amount to torture.

Evidence is also admitted in these proceedings even from periods during which the person was denied access to counsel for weeks or months at a time and was not advised of their right to remain silent. Second- and third-hand statements (‘hearsay evidence’) are also admissible in these proceedings in circumstances that would be prohibited in ordinary criminal or military courts in the US.

Further, the circumstances in which such statements were obtained can be kept secret on national security grounds, precluding proper assessment of the acceptability and reliability of such statements. Indeed, generally, the military commissions allow for much more use of classified or otherwise secret evidence than might normally be permitted in an ordinary criminal trial.

Further, only non-US nationals can be prosecuted by these military commissions. If a US national committed exactly the same acts as those alleged in the prosecutions taking place in this court, they could only be tried in the ordinary US civilian courts (or if they were members of the armed forces, in ordinary courts-martial), where far greater protections and safeguards are available.

Discrimination on the basis of national origin in the fairness of criminal trial procedures is prohibited by international law.

The military judge and "members of the military commission" (essentially the jury) are all part of the US armed forces and therefore part of the executive branch of government rather than members of an independent judiciary and randomly selected members of the public. The standard for conviction is also lower than that typically required for a criminal trial.

Only two-thirds of the commission members must agree to a vote of "guilty" in order to convict. Crucially, even if a particular accused is found not guilty by a military commission, this does not guarantee that they will be released as would be required after an ordinary criminal trial. Even if someone is acquitted after a trial by military commission, the US administration maintains that it can continue to detain them indefinitely – perhaps for life.

What are the 'rules of conduct' for external observers at the hearings?

The "ground rules" that NGOs and their observers must agree to abide by are mainly:

to not publish, release, discuss or share information identified as protected from disclosure, even if it is inadvertently disclosed during a session;
to follow the instructions of the military judge;
not to record or document electronically the proceedings or their participants from the courtroom;
not to reveal the identities of individuals beyond those already released to the public, including the judge, commission members, prosecutors and defence lawyers, and witnesses, and staff;
not to disclose routes or movements of detainees.

Breaches of those rules could result in the NGO’s access to hearings being removed or restricted, or even to prosecution of the individual observer.

In the trial I have been observing, some witnesses testify under pseudonyms (such as "witness #1") to protect their identity, and some evidence is clearly treated as "secret" and protected from the outset. The defence in the trial appeared to be careful to avoid asking questions in public that would be likely to reveal or elicit classified information.

Technological means are used to ensure that some photos or documents that the witness, military judge, lawyers and commission members can see is not seen by the audience. However, the commissions do have the power to exclude the observers from the hearing room if they consider it necessary to do so, though that was not done in the week of observations I just completed.

These "ground rules" posed no particular problem to me so far, though one can imagine that if, in the future, information revealing grave violations of human rights were inadvertently revealed in a hearing at which an NGO observer was in attendance, and the military judge ordered non-disclosure, the situation could weigh very heavily on the conscience of that observer.

What would you say is the hardest thing about being there?

For me as an NGO observer, I have suffered few hardships here. The military and civilian personnel with whom I have come into contact have on the whole been courteous and professional and our minders in particular helped ensure that we NGO observers could participate in some social activities so that we are not left in our tents all the time.

The hearings have been intentionally designed to look as much as possible like an ordinary criminal trial. The only detainee I have seen is the person being tried in the proceedings and then only while he is in the courtroom and so my immediate sense of the hardships he and others face when they are isolated in the detention facilities is very limited.

Any complaints I might have about being here seem wholly insignificant when compared to the treatment and conditions under which the detainees must live.

The hardest thing about being here, for me, then, is to keep in the forefront of my mind some cold hard facts about the other reality that lies just behind all of this – the past and continuing violations of the human rights of the detainees that has taken place not only before they arrived here at Guantánamo Bay, but somewhere possibly just around the corner from a restaurant, shop or ice cream parlour I have visited.

Some of that is the physical and mental abuse to which detainees have been subjected –which I have come to understand some, perhaps many, people on the Base do not support.

But also, observing the trial, it is all too easy to get caught up in the narrative of the merits of the case against an individual detainee, to slip into thinking "is he guilty or innocent" as if we as observers were ourselves the triers of fact in a fair and lawful hearing.

The mission of Amnesty International observers is not in any way related to the guilt or innocence of a particular accused – a question irrelevant to the rights to which they are entitled in their detention and trial here.

In other words, the fiction that what is taking place at Guantánamo is a form of justice has indeed been artfully and seductively constructed – so one of the main challenges facing any observer is to continue to look past the superficial ways in which the process visually resembles an ‘ordinary’ trial so as to keep in clear focus the extreme unfairness by which the entire process, and the detention of these people here, is fundamentally tainted.

Observing Guantánamo's military commission hearings

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:20:21 +0100

On 21 July 2008, the first trial to take place before a military commission convened under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 opened at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Matthew Pollard, Amnesty International's legal advisor, was present to observe the proceedings.

In the first part of a two-part series, he gives a sense of what it was like there and the importance of independent observers attending such proceedings.

Amnesty International has always been denied access to the detainees held at Guantánamo. Does the organization’s access for the purpose of trial observation offer it any glimpses of the detention facility?

The total area occupied by the United States at Guantánamo Bay is quite large, some 116 square kilometres, with a wide variety of functions. The camps where detainees are held are only a small part of the larger base. As NGO observers, we are not permitted to go anywhere near the detention facilities, or any significant military installations.

In short, coming to Guantánamo Bay to observe the military commissions, except to the extent that conditions of detention become an issue during the trial proceedings, does not add to what we already know about conditions from released detainees, lawyers representing detainees, and the authorities themselves.

How easy is it to communicate with the outside world as an observer there?

We pay a weekly fee for wireless internet access, which we are able to use from within the tents. There is also a tent with telephones that can be used with long distance calling cards that function just like the ones you would buy anywhere else. Civilian mobile phones do not, so far as I am aware, work on the network at the base, though some European phones apparently pick up a signal from Cuban networks on the other side of the fence separating the base from the rest of the island.

As we can’t take anything electronic into the area where hearings take place, and don’t leave that area during the day except for lunch, we generally only get a real opportunity to telephone or email in the evening.

Are you free to move around?

If we want to leave the area immediately around our tents, as NGO observers, we must always travel in a group and always be accompanied by one of the several "minders" assigned to us by the military here. They are members of the military, and one of the three minders must always be with us, 24 hours a day.

During the day, they generally must accompany us in uniform. Even with the minders, there are many places we cannot go. Understandably, there are additional security checks and restrictions when we enter the area where the hearings are actually held. And, as mentioned earlier, we are not allowed to go anywhere near the detention facilities.

Where do you stay?

We spend most of our time in an area called "Camp Justice" – an ironic name if ever there was one – which consists primarily of ordinary semi-permanent air-conditioned military tents, each with six beds, where we sleep and work (and where I am writing this now) as well as a fridge, microwave and so on; tents containing shower, toilet, and laundry facilities; and a media centre located in a hangar where we can observe (but not ask questions at) press conferences, and talk to the media nearby.

From here, we are not far from the buildings where the trials take place, but need to pass through lots of security and be escorted by our military minder to go there.

The other areas we are allowed to see do not look too different from a small town anywhere in the United States – after all the base as a whole is essentially a community for the people who work here – so there are familiar chain restaurants, pubs, recreational facilities, residential neighbourhoods, an outdoor cinema, parks, several small shops and at least one supermarket, and so on.

How do you get there?

The military offers space on some of its flights from Florida to journalists and NGOs. However, the frequency of those flights is limited. Several private companies also offer commercial flights to Guantánamo Bay. Everyone requires permission from the Department of Defense.

The commercial flights to Guantánamo Bay won’t permit anyone who doesn’t have the necessary documents to board the plane. They leave from Fort Lauderdale airport, just north of Miami, Florida. The flight I took was an older small plane, capable of carrying about 8 passengers.

These flights may include military and civilian personnel who work at the base, lawyers, and NGOs. The flight generally takes between three and four hours, partly due to the fact that the plane cannot enter Cuban airspace and so must take a longer route than would otherwise be necessary.

Can you describe a 'typical day' for us?

On a day where a court hearing will take place, we generally get up around 7am, shower and have a coffee and cereal bar in the tent, and are collected by our minder at around 8. We go through the security procedures to the building where the hearings are conducted, usually beginning at 8:30.

Hearings are scheduled to continue until 5pm, with several short breaks and a longer break for lunch, though they often sit later into the evening in order to finish with a witness (so that the length of time he or she is on the island can be minimized). Our minders have to sit with us in the hearings. Sometimes the hearings end early or may not happen at all.

After the hearing is finished, there is normally a press conference in the media centre, where the Chief Defence Counsel and Chief Prosecutor, or their designates, answer questions from the media. NGOs are not allowed to ask questions at the press briefings, though we are able to sit and observe.

Once the press briefing is finished, often around 7:30 or 8pm, we may speak with the print or television media outside the briefing room for anywhere from a few minutes to an hour.

After that, we normally return to the tents and change into more comfortable clothing, and then go to a restaurant for dinner. Again, our minder must accompany us. Finally, we return to our tents to write reports back to our offices and then finally get to bed sometime between 11:30 pm and 1 or 2 in the morning.

How many others are with you?

As I mentioned, the NGO observers generally must always travel as a group. During my time here, I have been with three observers from other organisations. There are also journalists who we see at the hearings and press conferences and from time to time run into elsewhere on the base – their numbers vary.

Sometimes there are only one or two in the room where the hearings take place (though more may be watching via CCTV from the media centre) and only a handful on the island at all – at other times larger crowds of journalists may stay for only a day or two around a significant event.

Why do they allow observers?

You would need to ask the US authorities for a definitive answer, but my understanding is that they believe that allowing observers demonstrates their confidence in the fairness of the procedures. Of course, we do not agree that the procedures are lawful or fair, but being there helps us to document further our concerns.

Are there any key absences? Do you know of any people denied access?

I don’t know if any person or organization who has sought to observe the trials has actually been denied access. Access for witnesses may be a different question, however. At the time of my writing, some problems were anticipated with regard to access to the hearings for certain witnesses the defence counsel wished to call.

For instance, in the trial I am observing, the accused is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy that included high-level al-Qa’ida officials, some of whom are currently being detained in highly restrictive conditions as so-called “high value detainees”.

Normally when these detainees appear in their own proceedings, the observers sit in a sound-proof box and a lengthy time delay is added to what they hear such that audio can be cut if the military judge or national security officer deems it necessary. At the time I left, it remained unclear whether these detainees would be allowed to testify as witnesses in the trial I was observing.

There have also been indications that some other witnesses the defence consider necessary for the defendant’s case, who live in other countries, might not be allowed access to the base, and again, at the time of writing, it is not known whether these people would give testimony by video link or otherwise.

USA: Omar Khadr must be immediately repatriated to Canada

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:40:55 +0100

Reacting to today’s release of a video publicly showing Canadian citizen Omar Khadr being questioned at the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Amnesty International called for Khadr to be repatriated to Canada immediately.

The video is the first of a detainee being questioned in Guantanamo and shows Khadr being interrogated by Canadian officials in 2003 when he was just sixteen years old.

While he is not shown being directly ill-treated, he is shown crying, calling out for help repeatedly and showing his wounds to the officials. He is also shown as being without legal representation.

“The treatment of Omar Khadr throughout his detention violates the USA’s obligations under international law, which requires that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration,” said Amnesty International.

“The US has violated international standards by refusing to recognize Omar Khadr’s status as a minor and treating him accordingly.”

On 19 June, Omar Khadr appeared at a military commission pre-trial hearing in Guantanamo. A trial date in his case was set for 8 October 2008.

“No one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be tried by military commissions, which have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever,” said Amnesty International. “Omar Khadr should either be repatriated and tried in Canada by an ordinary court or released.”

Amnesty International said that the entire military commission system is fundamentally flawed and the tribunals must be abandoned in all cases.

Background information
Omar Khadr was detained by the US military in Afghanistan in 2002, when he was 15 years old. He has been held in Guantanamo Bay since he was 16. He is now 21.

Successive Canadian governments have repeatedly stressed that they sought and received assurances from US authorities that Omar Khadr was being treated humanely in detention at Guantánamo Bay. However, documents released on 10 July 2008 (following a December 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision that Omar Khadr should be granted access to some of the records of his interrogation by Canadian officials in 2003 and 2004) revealed that the Canadian government was aware that he was being subjected to so-called “stress and duress” techniques. Yet, Canadian officials still proceeded with their interrogations of Omar Khadr.

To see further information about the case of Omar Khadr, please see:

USA: In whose best interests? Omar Khadr, child ‘enemy combatant’ facing military commission, 16 April 2008, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/028/2008/en

Other relevant materials:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/066/2008/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/065/2008/en
http://www.amnesty.ca/resource_centre/news/view.php?load=arcview&article=4373&c=Resource+Centre+News

Omar Khadr must be immediately repatriated to Canada

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:51:21 +0100