Explaining their decision to reject the investigation, REDRESS Director Carla Ferstman told teleSUR that “the Intelligence and Security Committee — made up of parliamentarians with the Prime Minister having a veto on the publication of any of its findings — is not independent of the UK government,” adding that it “therefore lacks all credibility for a human rights inquiry into the UK Government’s complicity in torture. This is why we have decided not to support it.”
She said that REDRESS and other human rights NGOs believe “an independent judge with full powers to run and publish the results of an inquiry is required to get to the truth, and anything else smacks of a cover-up.”
Nine leading human rights groups have signed a letter confirming that they would not support the inquiry, led by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) of the UK parliament, as they did not trust the impartiality of the committee.
“Consequently, we as a collective of domestic and international non-governmental organizations do not propose to play a substantive role in the conduct of this inquiry,” the letter, obtained by the The Sunday Observer, states.
The letter was signed by Reprieve, REDRESS, Rights Watch UK, The Aire Centre, Freedom from Torture, Amnesty International, Cage, Justice, and Liberty 80.
It comes despite reassurances from British Prime Minister David Cameron that the probe will be led by a top judge, as the groups have lost faith in the integrity of the government.
“The Prime Minister had expressly ruled out the possibility of the ISC carrying out the investigation, recognising that an inquiry led by a judge who is ‘fully independent of Parliament, party and Government’ was required ‘to get to the bottom of the case.’ We are therefore deeply disappointed that, having pledged to hold a judge-led inquiry shortly after taking office, both parties of Government have now u-turned on that promise,” the letter explained.
“We remain unpersuaded that the decision to cut short the work of the flawed Gibson inquiry and to pass the baton on to the ISC is an adequate substitute for the establishment of an independent judicial inquiry.”
The chair of the ISC, former Conservative Defense and Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, was unperturbed by the boycott, and confirmed the investigation would continue as planned.
“If they want their views to be taken into account they will give us the benefit of their views, if they refuse to do so we’ll have to do without their input. I don’t see the logic. We’re not looking into the interests of human rights groups; our remit is to look into the evidence that exists with regard to the attitudes of the intelligence agencies, and their treatment of detainees and matters of rendition,” he told the Observer.
However, the organizations stand by their rejection of ISC, which “lacks all credibility for a human rights inquiry,” according to Carla Ferstman, Director of REDRESS.