The International Day Against Torture

Granting diplomatic immunity to former torturers is wrong

The issue of torture has plagued reformists and civil societies for centuries and remains a source of anxiety among activists and civil rights activists throughout the world. Despite the multitude of international legislations criminalising the use of torture it remains the main tool in the hands of government agents against opponents.

 When the world celebrated the International Day Against Torture on 26th June, the public enthusiasm for the event was lukewarm. It appears that modern societies and media have yet to make combating torture a priority. There may have been gatherings, speeches or statements by human rights bodies, but as long as torturers continue to roam through the towns and villages of beleaguered societies people will remain vigilant against appearing to campaign for human, civil or political rights. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) was legislated to criminalise the use of this cruel treatment, but the lack of real will within the international community to stand up against those who commit this crime has rendered it largely ineffective.

Bahrain, for example, had signed CAT in 1998, few months after the murder of Nooh Khalil Al Nooh by members of the Al Khalifa Death Squads. They had him for two days before they dumped his mutilated body at the steps of his house. It was a message for the activists who continued to defy the hereditary dictatorship ruling the country by force and intimidation. The horrific scenes reflected by the mutilated body of Nooh compelled the regime to put its signature on CAT. It had, however, refused to sign the additional protocol that allows torture victims to take their cases to international bodies. It is now ten years since CAT was signed, but torture is rampant in police cells. The bodies who have recently been released from detention have clear evidence of severe torture; physical, sexual as well as psychological. Where is CAT then? The regime would always maintain its innocence and deny that its interrogators would administer torture on the prisoners. But the Bahraini victims were courageous enough to lash out at the kangaroo court room when they appeared last March.

One after the other, they detailed the horrific torture inflicted on them to force them to sign uncorroborated testimonies prepared by the officials at the ministry of the interior. The court room suddenly became a trial of the Al Khalifa torturers. The presence of foreign lawyers invited by the opposition exposed the brutality of the regime to the outside world for the first time. The court session was brought to an abrupt end. A decision was subsequently taken to abandon the show trials that were beginning to go against the wishes of the regime.

The story of torture in Bahrain is relatively new. It was institutionalised by the notorious British colonial officer, Ian Henderson, who had previously served in Kenya and was key figure in torturing the Mau Mau insurgents. Eight of them are now suing the British government in London for their ill-treatment at the peak of the insurgency in the fifties. Ian Henderson is one of those involved in the maltreatment of the Mau Mau. When he was employed by Sir Anthony Parsons (the British Political Agent in Bahrain) in 1966 he brought with him a life-long experience in torture and ill-treatment of prisoners. He established one of the most ruthless torture apparatus in the Middle East. The following four decades witnessed thousands of innocent Bahrainis being driven into the torture chambers, many of whom were subsequently came out mutilated corpses. When he retired in 2000 his legacy survived intact. The person who succeeded him was no other person than the notorious torturer, Abdul Azia Atiyyat Allah Al Khalifa who re-introduced torture after a brief lull. Atiyyat Allah stands accused of gross violations of human rights at grand scales, having served for more than two decades under Henderson. He was directly implicated in personally administering torture against scores of detainees. When the uproar against him intensified, he was swiftly removed from leading the Al Khalifa security apparatus and installed as an “advisor” to the ruler on security matters.

The appointment of a successor did not prove a consolation to those seeking to rid the country of this evil practice. Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa adopted similar ruthlessness in dealing with the opponents of the Al Khalifa occupiers. In December 2007 he allowed the extensive torture of several people including Maitham Al Shaikh, Hassan Abdul Nabi and Naji Fateel. This cruel treatment led the first of these victims to develop Multiple Sclerosis and is now bed-ridden. Rashid Al Khalifa was later dispatched to London to become the Ambassador to UK, while the former Ambassador, Khalifa bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, became the director of national security. Despite his sweet mutterings, he proved to be no less evil than his predecessors. Over the past twelve months, more than one hundred Bahrainis were tortured by the torture apparatus run by Khalifa bin Abdulla, the former Ambassador in London. Questions are now being asked whether the UK is the training grounds for torturers. Almost all the torturers had, in one way or another, links with London. Attiyat Allah, Khalid Al Ma’awdah and Abdul Salam Al Ansari,  had been trained in the late sixties at the Police Academy at Hendon. Is it plausible to allow torturers to run embassies? How can the civilised world accept these evil men to be treated as diplomats with special immunity? What is the difference, in real terms, between the impunity granted to torturers granted by the notorious Law 56/2002 decreed by the ruler and the immunity offered to the torturers under the diplomatic pretext?

As the world celebrated the International Day Against Torture questions are being asked whether the “civilised” world is morally civilised when it shelters torturers and human rights violators. What is the difference between a torturer like the Al Khalifa Ambassador who terrorise innocent people behind bars and those who commit the heinous crimes of terrorism against innocent civilians? There ought to be a clear and unambiguous message that torture cannot be tolerated when committed by anyone, and that diplomatic immunity may not be granted to former torturers. The success or failure of our civil society depends on whether the government takes serious steps to outlaw torture by pursuing those who had been torturers.

The recent experience has proven, once again, that present diplomats of dictatorial regimes, may run torture apparatus. This is what last year’s Bahrain’s Ambassador to Bahrain is doing now. The testimonies of his victims prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he is a torturer of the highest calibre.

Bahrain Freedom Movement
26June 2009