which has been torturing Irish People for the past 20 years by a policy of state terrorism. I submit to you evidence of the British campaign of torture and murder against the Irish people for inclusion in your committee report. Many of your colleagues have spoken out against British abuse and this is commendable and I would like to thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah who has been very vocal in his concern with the basic human and constitutional rights of the Irish people in Ireland, England and the United States. I have had the honor of acting as Senator Hatch's Irish advisor for the past seven years and know his commitment.

For the past 20 years, the British government has pursued a policy of murder, torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has now admitted that the British government's MI 5 and MI 6 engaged in a "dirty tricks" campaign in the early seventies. These intelligence groups as well as the elite Strategic Air Services (SAS) were responsible for assassinations and the systematic torture of Irish People.

The state terrorism of the British is unparralled in any nation that calls itself free and democratic. The torture convention before you must be particularly aimed at the British. Ninety to ninety-five percent of those presently incarcerated in Prisons in Northern Ireland and in England, that is, Irishmen and Irishwomen, were tortured to obtain confessions and these confessions along with sworn statements of government paid informers, paid to lie, were used as convicting evidence. The courts in Northern Ireland are non jury courts where a government judge is appointed to operate the British conveyor belt of injustice.

In 1976, Britain was cited for torture by the European Commission on Human Rights and convicted of cruel and degrading treatment of Irish people in 1978. Does it continue? The British Secretary of State for Defense stated recently about the dirty tricks campaign: "it is still used in Ulster (Northern Ireland) where it is necessary to protect lives and for sound and absolutely honourable reasons." If murder, torture and a campaign of lies are for honourable reasons, what are the dishonourable ones.

The case against the United Kingdom and their campaign of murder as well as physical and psychological torture of Irish civilians is overwhelming and substantiated by evidence. The tragedy is that it is on going and the United States has remained deathly silent accepting publicly Britain's denials and thereby participating in the cover up of atrocity. At least the condemn nation of torture through the convention is a start. As part of this written testimony, let me offer the committee a synopsis of the British "dirty tricks" campaign and chapter 5 of a book by two English people who set out the British state terrorism which is the root cause of the problem in Ireland.

THE BRITISH CAMPAIGN OF DIRTY TRICKS (MURDER, TORTURE AND DISINFORMATION) British Intelligence and Conservative M.P. Airey Neave were the architects. 1. They published lies about alleged Irish terrorists.

2. They published lies about Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.

3. They published lies about Conservative Leader, Edward Heath

4. They published lies about prominent Irish Americans, Fr. Sean McManus, Frederico P. Burns-O'Brien, Congressman Mario Biaggi and others. The result of the campaign put Thatcher in as Tory leader in 1975 and as Prime Minister in 1979 with Neave as her top advisor. All this was done with the knowledge of the CIA. 5. British security forces murdered and abused Irish People (almost all Catholics) in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland to instill fear and terror in the population generally. In November 1989, an American citizen, Liam Ryan was murdered by surrogate agents of the British security forces extending the terror to Americans. 6. The British security forces torture suspects on the street in random searches and in custody. Fred Holroyd, former British military intelligence officer in Northern Ireland served as liaison between military intelligence, MI 6, the RUC local police and the SAS elite units. He has confirmed the dirty tricks campaign; he participated in it. Also, Colin Wallace, civilian press officer of the Ministry of Defense, confirmed 35 assassinations by security forces in the first 6 months of 1976 alone. British Police Superintendent, John Stalker, investigated a "shoot to kill" policy and confirmed it as well. All was denied by Thatcher in May 1987, but more recent revelations forced her to recant and in a letter to the House of Commons, January 30, 1990 she had to admit lying.

The ongoing murders by British security forces leave little hope that their policy of State Terrorism will end soon until the torture and murder campaigns are given public exposure. On January 13, 1990, three alleged suspects were pursued by plain clothes SAS soldiers and shot without warning then, according to eye witnesses they

were shot as they lay dying on the ground. Three other SAS murders in 1989 were similarly carried out. In many cases, murders carried out by the British security forces are preceded by beatings and torture of the victims.

The British who are self righteous and quick to condemn need only look in the mirror to find the greatest torturers of the second half of the 20th Century. The United States must be the loudest in condemnation of the British if they are to look in the mirror and not see a two faced hypocrite. So many individual leaders in the U.S. have had the courage to condemn British atrocities, it is time the government did so. The Torture Convention is a step in the right direction.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION (INTERNATIONAL LAW

SECTION)

The Federal Bar Association International Law Section strongly supports the advice and consent by the U.S. Senate to ratification of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture).

This treaty, which the United States has signed, represents an important step forward in the development of international standards against torture.

The Convention makes it legitimate for a nation to be concerned and to intercede regarding the behavior of another country toward its citizens. The Convention reinforces the definition of torture so that torturers may no longer claim that they were unaware of the meaning of torture.

The United States played a major role in drafting the treaty. It should complete the process by ratifying the Convention. It is the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council which has not ratified the Convention.

The United States publicly proclaims support for human rights. The longer it waits to ratify the treaty, the more its credibility as a human rights leader is eroded. Ratification is vital in proving the U.S. commitment to human rights as a concern that crosses national boundaries.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES

MR. CHAIRMAN: Human Rights Advocates is a California-based, public interest, non-profit organization that works to promote human rights through the use of international law. HRA has provided information to congressional offices on a variety of human rights initiatives, and filed interventions with U.N. human rights bodies in Geneva and New York. HRA members participated in the drafting of U.N. instruments condemning torture and continue to work for greater compliance. We are pleased to join various colleagues in submitting testimony urging ratification of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and commend the Foreign Relations Committee for convening hearings on this pressing and important issue.

HRA strongly support U.S. ratification of the Torture Convention but equally strongly opposes all of the reservations the administration has proposed that the Senate attach to its advice and consent to ratification. We are concerned that the administration has recommended a number of reservations with the aim of assuring that ratification will require only minimal changes in U.S. law.

That attitude sends a disturbing signal to other governments and is sure to be cited by some as justification for their own acceptance of the treaty subject to conditions that would minimize domestic relevance. While we are pleased that the administration recommends participation in the committee established to monitor compliance with the treaty, the proposed reservations would have the effect of shielding the U.S. from scrutiny. If the U.S. is to achieve credibility in its commitment to human rights it must be willing to be held to the same standards as other participating governments.

We are particularly distressed by the reservation to article 16 whereby the U.S. proposes to limit the meaning of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" to the U.S. understanding of treatment or punishment by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The State Department's objections to article 16 focus on two points: (1) the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in the Soering case that death row conditions in certain circumstances could violate the European prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment, and (2) the vagueness of the phrase “degrading treatment."

We believe that both those concerns can be addressed adequately through the deliberations of the committee against torture. In any event, to the extent that the

U.S. is adamant about shielding itself from inquiry into those two areas, far less onerous understandings would suffice.

First, regarding death row conditions, the U.S. has proposed an express understanding that it "does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with **the Constitution . . ." That understanding is adequate to protect the U.S. from scrutiny concerning imposition of the death penalty.

Second, while the contours of the prohibition of "degrading treatment" may be vague, considerable consensus exists concerning the reach of the prohibition of "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment." "Cruel or inhuman" specifies treatment that causes significant and unnecessary physical or mental injury, whereas degrading treatment does not require injury. The State Department legal adviser, is his statement to the Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged the administration's expectation "that our Constitution would prohibit most (if not all) of the practices covered in Article 16 . . ." Thus, to allay administration concerns, a reservation limiting U.S. obligations under article 16 to those pertaining to "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment" should suffice.

Our proposed understanding would reflect a more sophisticated approach to the prohibition of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" than that suggested by the administration's current proposed reservation. That reservation refers to the term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In fact the prohibition is not a single term but one whose prohibitions are severable and have been separately analyzed and construed.

Moreover, our proposed understanding would have a modest yet noteworthy impact on U.S. practice. The prohibition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment currently overlaps significantly and perhaps entirely, as noted above, with U.S. Constitutional requirements. The treaty does not require criminalization of the infliction of cruel or human treatment or punishment, but only its prevention through such means as education of law enforcement, military, and publicly employed medical personnel.

The international effect of modifying the proposed article 16 reservation, however, would be significant. It would demonstrate U.S. willingness to be held to the same general standards as the rest of the states parties and to improve U.S. treatment in areas other than the death penalty to the extent that the international standard evolves to be more protective of rights than are the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; it would contribute to development of the prohibition of "cruel or inhuman treatment;" and it would make more credible U.S. complaints concerning conduct that a criticized government arguably could claim falls on the borderline between torture and cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Torture, as internationally understood, clearly is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and criminal and civil penalties already are provided in U.S. law. If the Torture Convention is to have any impact on U.S. law-other than making a few minor adjustments regarding extradition, deportation, and international cooperation in criminal prosecutions-the U.S. must stand willing to accept the primary obligations imposed by article 16.

Accordingly, we strongly urge the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification without any reservations and, in particular, without any reservations concerning article 16; at most, and understanding concerning degrading treatment should suffice to assuage administration concerns.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK C. NEWMAN, (RETIRED JUSTICE), SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

U.S. RESPONSE TO THE U.N. "TORTURE TREATY"

In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, coauthored by Eleanor Roosevelt and other U.S.and U.N. experts, pronounced that “No one shall be subjected to the torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." That sentence is reiterated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been in effect since 1976, which President Carter endorsed in 1977, but to which our Senate not yet has given advice and consent (even though most nations of the world have ratified the treaty).

As to many clauses of the Universal Declaration and the Covenant, experts sometimes conclude that implementation and interpretation are needed. Thus the U.N. Treaty on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was drafted and has been in effect since 1987. As an editorial this year in the

New York Times noted (on February 16) 41 nations already have ratified the Treaty. (And now there are more than 41).

President Reagan endorsed the Torture Treaty, and on January 30 this year Senator Pell and three Republican members of the Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony. Testifying for the U.S. were the legal advisor of the State Department and the deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's criminal division.

* *

The New York Times editorial states, "Creditably, the Bush administration has scrapped some disabling reservations * and favors ratification with only a few important changes." But what changes are important? I fear that whoever approved that editorial was or were not informed as to what has not been "scrapped." I suggest that the Torture Treaty will be shredded if several changes now proposed by the White House are not rejected by the U.S. Senate.

To illustrate: Though the Times seems to approve the making of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment a criminal offense," completely ignored is the fact that the White House (now in a "reservation" and not merely a Reagan "understanding") wants the phrase to include only those offenses proscribed by the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indisputable is the fact that offenses covered by the those three amendments shockingly have less coverage than do the U.N. proscriptions. Further, seven of President Reagan's "disabling reservations" have been retained without modification; and President Bush's scrapings indeed are minimal (e.g., "to clarify the definition of mental harm").

Is it too much to ask that the staff of the Times will guide us with more than “a 30-second soundbite" analysis?

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

For most Americans torture is a subject Ear removed from personal experience. But for people in too many other countries, torture is part of reality. It is used as a weapon to intimidate, coerce, or punish political opponents, and often infests the criminal justice system. Torture not only causes severe physical and/or mental pain or suffering when it occurs; the physical and psychological aftereffects of torture can last a lifetime. As Richard Schifter, then Alternate U.S. Representative to the 39th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, proclaimed on December 10, 1984 when the nations of the world unanimously adopted the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: "One of the most flagrant continuing violations of human rights is torture—a crude violation of everything that we understand by the word "human." As long as torture persists, further steps are needed to translate our words into actions to eliminate this abhorrent practice."

Human Rights Watch welcomes the decision of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold hearings on the Convention Against Torture. We urge the Senate to give its prompt advice and consent to ratification of the treaty without reservations, declarations, or understandings that dilute its provisions or reduce its domestic impact. Failure to do so will decrease US influence to eliminate the scourge of torture worldwide. It could also mar the effectiveness of U.S.-based non-governmental human rights monitoring organizations, like Human Rights Watch. These groups would be in a weak position to respond to charges, made by governments whose human rights practices they are reporting, that their own country has refused to adopt international norms prohibiting and punishing torture.

While the Congress, this administration, and all recent administrations have made statements and passed resolutions assailing torture, the U.S. has yet to ratify a single international human rights treaty banning torture. This recalcitrance sends a message to other countries that U.S. abhorrence of torture is rhetorical rather than an unwavering element of foreign policy. It provides nations that engage in torture with a role model to follow when they refuse to be bound by international norms prohibiting torture. And it deprives all people who face the threat of torture of the protections that a powerful ally against such abuse can provide.

Of all the international treaties that condemn torture, the Convention Against Torture goes furthest in setting forth practical steps governments must take to protect individuals. These include making torture a criminal offense, and training civil and military law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, and public officials about the prohibition against torture. The treaty establishes an independent international committee to monitor compliance with the treaty and, if a nation so agrees, to investigate inter-state and individual complaints. It also requires nations to

ensure that torture victims have an enforceable right to compensation and the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.

In addition, the treaty makes torture a universal crime over which all nations have jurisdiction. Countries that ratify the treaty are required to arrest suspected torturers found within their territory and prosecute and punish them, or extradite them to another country that will. It also requires that nations assist each other in criminal proceedings against torturers.

That other nations regard these provisions as crucial safeguards against torture is evidenced by the number of ratifications the treaty has received. In the five years since the treaty was opened for signature, fifty countries have ratified it. These include the Soviet Union, most European countries, Canada, and Mexico. Indeed, the United States is the only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council that has not ratified the treaty.

The U.S. has little reason to fear international scrutiny of its laws or practices with respect to torture. While not perfect, the U.S. record in this area is good. Allowing international scrutiny of its record with respect to torture would demonstrate this nation's impartial commitment to human rights and would substantially increase U.S. authority to demand that other countries put an end to torture.

Ratification of the treaty would also show this nation's respect for international law. U.S. officials voiced strong support for the creation of the treaty and U.S. representatives participated in all sessions of the Open-Ended Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Commission that was charged with drafting it. It would appear impudent for a nation that was so actively involved in the treaty drafting process to disregard the final outcome as if it were above the need to be subject to the international norms the treaty establishes.

Indeed the treaty offers U.S. citizens and residents protections against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that they have every right to expect. Moreover, it assures them that future generations will live in a nation free of the terror and agony of torture; future U.S. administrations will be subject to a continuing international law obligation not to allow torture to occur.

Prompt ratification would enable the U.S. to play a central role in the process by which the treaty is interpreted and implemented. It would ensure a U.S. voice in selecting members of the Committee Against Torture who will monitor compliance with the treaty. This nation ought to be involved actively in the important early stages of treaty implementation so that U.S. concerns are taken into account.

The importance of unencumbered ratification of this treaty bears reemphasizing. Treaties govern relations between the nations that are party to them. While they have important domestic import, their primary function lies in the international plain. In the case of human rights treaties, they are the means by which nations affirm to one another their solemn commitment to promote and protect human rights both within and beyond national frontiers. Because nations of many diverse political and legal traditions will become party to them, their language is often less specific than any particular government would like. It is for that reason that treaties like the Convention Against Torture include mechanisms for interpreting the treaty and for resolving disputes regarding interpretation that may arise between parties.

For the implementation process to be genuinely fair and impartial, all nations must accept and work within these limitations. The Committee Against Torture would face daunting obstacles to implementing the treaty if every nation insisted on redrafting the treaty's provisions to ensure that all relevant domestic law considerations were etched into its treaty obligations.

The package of reservations, understandings, and declarations submitted by the Bush administration demonstrates an almost paranoid fear that interpretation and implementation of the treaty at the international level will be unfair. While accepting the competence of the Committee Against Torture, several reservations and understandings undermine the Committee's ability to implement the treaty with respect to the U.S. by limiting interpretations of Convention provisions to those acceptable to the U.S.

Most troubling are those reservations that relate to the definition of torture. article 1 of the Convention defines torture as: * * * any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other

28-065 0 - 90 - 4