Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, accused of murdering two soldiers, left at risk of unfair trial and execution in Iraq, European court finds

• Helen Pidd
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.15 GMT
• Article history

 

The UK government was today condemned for violating the human rights of two Iraqis accused of murdering two captive British soldiers in 2003.

Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, Sunni Muslims and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, have been detained for almost seven years. They are currently being held in the Rusafa prison near Baghdad.

The European court of human rights in Strasbourg unanimously found the pair were "at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging" in Iraq.

The finding reversed a decision made at the UK's highest court.

Saadoon and Mufdhi are accused of two of the most brutal killings of British personnel during the war.

On 23 March 2003, Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp, both bomb disposal experts, were dragged from their vehicles during an ambush within days of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

They were taken to an intelligence base, shot and filmed as they lay dying surrounded by a baying mob. Their bodies were found in shallow graves a month later.

Saadoon, 57, and 59-year-old Mufdhi have been waging a long-running legal battle, arguing that the British army had been wrong to hand them over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in December 2008.

They claim the transfer put them at real risk of torture and death by hanging after the Iraqi national assembly reintroduced the death penalty in 2004.

The two were tried by an Iraqi court in 2009 and cleared of the charges, but remain in custody pending an appeal by the prosecutor.

The European court of human rights ruled that Saadoon and Mufdhi had been "subjected to mental suffering caused by the fear of execution amounting to inhuman treatment" and awarded them €40,000 (£36,330) jointly in costs.

The judgment said: "For the court, compliance with their obligations under article three of the convention [which prohibits torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"] requires the government to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty."

Following the judgement, Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented Saadoon and Mufdhi, said: "We call upon the UK government, in light of the severe criticisms made by the European court, to now do everything within its power to protect our clients from the death penalty and to seek their release so that they can, at long last, be reunited with their families.

"This case has been pursued for political purposes, and it is now time for the government to act."

The armed forces minister, Bill Rammell, said: "We are carefully considering the court's verdict.

"On 31 December 2008, we transferred to the Iraqi authorities, to face trial for war crimes, two Iraqis suspected of involvement in the murder of two British soldiers.

"At this point, we had no legal power to detain the suspects, and the court of appeal had unanimously ruled that they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European convention on human rights.

"We transferred them having received credible assurances from the Iraqi government that they would be treated humanely in custody and we know that this has been the case.

"We have acted throughout in the interests of justice and in the interests of the families of the two murdered soldiers. We should all welcome the due legal process that is now being followed."

Justice department finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct

• Ewen MacAskill in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 20 February 2010
• Article history

Detainees in a holding area at Guantanamo Bay. Photograph: Shane T McCoy/AFP/Getty Images

 

An inquiry by the US justice department last night reprimanded two senior Bush era lawyers who approved the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay. The department found the two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct.

The lawyers wrote controversial memorandums dating from 2002 after the 9/11 attacks that provided legal cover for the CIA to use torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. The conclusion of the report, which marks a significant softening of the original draft, will disappoint human rights organisations. Publication of the report has been delayed for months amid fierce internal debate. If the two had been found guilty of professional misconduct, it would have had consequences for their immediate careers and opened the way for legal challenges.

The techniques approved by the lawyers included waterboarding, which Barack Obama has described as torture but the former vice-president, Dick Cheney, insisted was not. Detainees accused of the 9/11 attacks such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were repeatedly subjected to waterboarding. Harsh techniques were used against others picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan and taken to Guantánamo.

The assistant attorney-general, Ronald Weich, found the two lawyers "exercised poor judgment in connection with the drafting of the pertinent memoranda". No disciplinary action is to be taken.

Weich said poor judgment "differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard". Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Bybee is a federal appeals court judge.

The Obama administration is reluctant to reopen the row over waterboarding and Obama last year ruled against prosecution of CIA agents involved in torture techniques. He said it was a "time for reflection, not retribution".Other techniques that were approved included walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), wall standing, and sleep deprivation.

Lord Neuberger's excised observations have compelling public interest, court of appeal told

• Richard Norton-Taylor
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010
• Article history

Lawyers representing Binyam ­Mohamed, the civil rights groups ­Liberty, Justice, and Index on Censorship, and media organisations ­including the Guardian, the Times and the BBC, urged the court of appeal today to publish a key passage in its draft ruling that evidence of MI5 complicity in the mistreatment of the British resident must be released.

A paragraph drawn up Lord ­Neuberger, master of the rolls, was suppressed following the intervention of the government's lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC.

In a letter sent to ­Neuberger without the knowledge of defence lawyers, Sumption said the paragraph suggested that MI5 officers "deliberately misled" parliament's intelligence and security committee, shared a "culture of suppression" and "does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights".

In what Neuberger admits was an "over-hasty" response he excised the offending paragraph without giving lawyers representing other parties in the case the opportunity to respond to Sumption's objections.

The submissions sent to the appeal court today are confidential but human rights and media groups say the evidence reflects the criticisms Sumption complains about.

There is a ­compelling public interest in the full judgment observations being restored, they have argued, and the government has no right to suppress judicial criticism of MI5 officers.

If ministers were allowed to do so, the reputation of the judiciary would be harmed.

Richard Stein of the law firm Leigh Day, which represents Mohamed, said: "The whole case has been about who writes the judgments – judges or the government.The government seeking to influence a draft judgment is a very worrying development." Reprieve, the legal charity which represented Mohamed in the US courts while he was detained in Guantanamo, said: "If the government really wants to clear up the confusion over MI5's conduct in this case, they must release the policy that was in place at the time. Releasing a new, cleaned-up version will not reassure anyone about these persistent and damaging allegations."

Its executive director, Clare Agar, said: "It is offensive to suggest that by fighting torture through the British legal system, Reprieve and others are giving succour to our enemies."

Media groups, including the ­Guardian, were today given leave to appeal against a high court ruling obtained by the ­government, that ­evidence in a civil suit for ­compensation brought by ­British citizens and residents must not be revealed to them or their lawyers.

Richard Norton-Taylor

Former prime minister accused of 'not facing up to facts' as he gives evidence to Chilcot inquiry

• Paul Lewis and Vikram Dodd
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 13.26 GMT
• Article history

Highlights from Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq inquiry Link to this video

The families of British military personnel killed in Iraq condemned Tony Blair's performance before the Chilcot inquiry today, accusing him of being disrespectful.

One, Theresea Evans, asked the former prime minister to look her in the eye and say sorry for the loss of her son.

Evans, from Llandudno, North Wales – whose 24-year-old son, Llywelyn, died in a Chinook helicopter crash in 2003 – said: "I would simply like Tony Blair to look me in the eye and say he was sorry. Instead, he is in there smirking."

Anne Donnachie, from Reading, Berkshire, whose 18-year-old son, Paul, was killed by a sniper in 2006, said she blamed Blair for his death.

"From what I have heard this morning, he is just denying everything," she said. "He will just not face up to the facts. I believe he made a massive mistake when he sent my son to Iraq."

Sarah Chapman, from Cambridge, whose brother, Sergeant Bob O'Connor, died five years ago, said it would be better if Blair was facing the families rather than sitting with his back to them as witnesses are required to do.

"He is being very adamant about his views, as we expected, but it is clear he did not share all the papers before the invasion with the rest of his cabinet," she said.

"I am disgusted by that. It is obvious he acted alone."

Anti-war protesters outside the inquiry were denied a chance to direct their chants at the former prime minister in person when he used a side entrance to make his way into the inquiry.

When he began giving evidence inside the QEII Centre in Westminster, a building fortified with steel barriers and lines of police, campaigners stopped their chants of "war criminal", turned their backs and began listening as the names of civilians and military personnel killed in the conflict were read out.

The crowds dissipated at the end of the morning, but numbers were expected to build again towards the end of the afternoon when the session ends and Blair leaves the inquiry.

For many, today will be the last in a line of protests against the Iraq war which began when up to two million people took to the streets to march against the invasion almost seven years ago.

"He [Blair] does not have the integrity to come and face the people," Lindsey German, the convener of the Stop the War Coalition, said. "Sliding in by a back door entrance is typical of his lies, deceit and evasion."

Andrew Murray, the chairman of the anti-war group, added: "This cowardly and deceitful entrance is typical of how the former prime minister sold the war to the country – behind the backs of the public."

Scotland Yard said there were at least 250 protestors and reported that officers had made no arrests.

By 9am, around 300 mainly older activists had gathered by the building in the cold and rain.

One of the first to arrive, at 7am, was Noel Hamel, the 67-year-old chair of the Kingston Peace Council. He had woken in the early hours in order to get to central London by bus and tube.

A disenfranchised former Labour party member who campaigned for Blair in 1997, he said: "I was out there knocking on doors, proposing motions.

"I just couldn't have imagined a Labour government taking us to a war of this kind while being so deceitful about it."

As word spread that Blair had already entered the centre, chants of "Tony Blair, to the Hague" began.

Ruby Lescott, another ex-Labour supporter in her 60s, said her "deep-rooted, immovable rage" was not only directed at Blair but also at his closest ministers.

"The cabinet – most of them – were reluctant about [the war]," she added. "The Labour government has eroded the virtues of our parliamentary system."

Among the few younger faces in the crowd, Lois Clifton, 19, and Emma Clewer, an 18-year-old fellow LSE university student, admitted their attempts to leaflet for the protest had been disappointing.

"We needed more people here," Clewer said. "It's a chance for people to show their anger."

During the start of the invasion, both were in their early teens and recalled the marches.

"There were a lot of walkouts at school," Clifton said. "I wasn't as aware as I am now ... but I knew what was happening was wrong."

A heavy police presence, including officers from the Metropolitan police's specialist Territorial Support Group, watched from behind barricades surrounding the centre.

As is common at protests, Forward Intelligence Team surveillance officers jotted down notes of what speakers were saying.

• Doctors trying to see files consider legal challenge

• Doubt grows over suicide verdict on Iraq expert

• Afua Hirsch, Legal affairs correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 January 2010 19.57 GMT
• Article history

Dr David Kelly arrives to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee over allegations the government 'sexed up' the intelligence dossier leading to war in Iraq. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images Europe

 

Lord Hutton's decision to classify documents about the death of Dr David Kelly is likely to face a legal challenge amid claims by experts that there are increasing grounds to question the inquiry's verdict of suicide.

The Hutton inquiry, which reported in 2004 that Kelly's death was suicide after he cut an artery in his wrist, has come under scrutiny from doctors who claim the medical account is improbable.

Five doctors who made an application to the Oxford coroner to have the inquest reopened have been told Lord Hutton made a ruling in 2003 to keep medical reports and photographs closed for 70 years. "This is a revelation," said Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner and expert in coronial law. "I can't think of anything that would justify these documents being treated any differently."

The doctors are trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost and Chris Burns-Cox, who specialises in internal general medicine. They applied for the documents with a view to applying to the attorney general to have the inquest reopened.

"We hope to get more materials from the coroner, examine those, and in the light of those materials make submissions", said Powers, who is closely involved in the case, although not party to the legal proceedings.

But a response from the coroner's legal advisers rejected the doctors' request, and revealed that the documents had been classified. "It is truly remarkable that they should be kept secret for twice as long as the other documents. I'm sure that they will meet with their legal advisers and consider the most appropriate way to deal with this," Powers said.

The doctors are also thought to be considering a challenge to the coroner's decision not to allow them to be "interested parties". Freedom of information experts say there appear to be strong grounds for the legal challenges. "If Lord Hutton was not carrying out a statutory inquiry, I can't immediately see what power he had to order that these records be closed," said Maurice Frankel, Director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information.

News of the decision to keep the documents classified has come as a surprise to lawyers. There is no mention of the decision on the Hutton inquiry website.

"If a matter as sensitive as this was not made public … it raises questions as to what else was withheld," said Powers. "You can't help but suspect that the legal advisers to the Oxfordshire coroner disclosed it inadvertently, thinking that it was already known that this material was being kept secret for such a long period."

Questions have remained around the death of Dr Kelly after an initial inquest into his death was never resumed. Instead, the Hutton findings were said to be sufficient. But the inquiry applied a less stringent test than would have used in an inquest, where a coroner has to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person intended to kill themselves.

"There should be a full inquiry. We need a proper answer," said Powers. "The medical evidence doesn't add up. I have yet to meet a doctor that will say it was even possible, let alone likely."

This is absolutely disgraceful...