This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/apr/07/secret-court-hearing-to-rule-on-foreign-office-evaluating-human-rights

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Secret court hearing to rule on Foreign Office's evaluation of human rights Secret court hearing to rule on Foreign Office's evaluation of human rights
(about 2 hours later)
A three-year battle by the Foreign Office (FCO) to keep secret how diplomatic issues colour its human rights decisions reached its climax on Thursday, in a court case that was itself largely held in secret at the insistence of the security services.A three-year battle by the Foreign Office (FCO) to keep secret how diplomatic issues colour its human rights decisions reached its climax on Thursday, in a court case that was itself largely held in secret at the insistence of the security services.
The FCO has been insisting it cannot reveal whether ministers looked at human rights concerns, including Pakistan’s use of the death penalty, before deciding to give cash to Islamabad’s anti-narcotics battle. Pakistan uses the death penalty against drug traffickers and has thousands on death row.The FCO has been insisting it cannot reveal whether ministers looked at human rights concerns, including Pakistan’s use of the death penalty, before deciding to give cash to Islamabad’s anti-narcotics battle. Pakistan uses the death penalty against drug traffickers and has thousands on death row.
Reprieve – which campaigns against capital punishment – says it is legitimate to know how the FCO’s funding decision was reached.Reprieve – which campaigns against capital punishment – says it is legitimate to know how the FCO’s funding decision was reached.
The case, heard at the information commissioner tribunal, is seen as a test case of the extent to which the UK government can use the threat of adverse consequences for international relations to keep freedom of information demands at bay.The case, heard at the information commissioner tribunal, is seen as a test case of the extent to which the UK government can use the threat of adverse consequences for international relations to keep freedom of information demands at bay.
The FCO is specifically fighting a request first lodged in 2013 that asked it to it reveal if it compiled a report for ministers on whether it would be in breach of UK human rights values to help the Pakistan anti-narcotics force, since anyone found guilty in court was then going to be liable for the death penalty.The FCO is specifically fighting a request first lodged in 2013 that asked it to it reveal if it compiled a report for ministers on whether it would be in breach of UK human rights values to help the Pakistan anti-narcotics force, since anyone found guilty in court was then going to be liable for the death penalty.
Reprieve argues as a minimum that it is legitimate for the public to be told how human rights issues had been considered internally by foreign office diplomats and ministers in such cases. Reprieve’s lawyers have often been excluded from the lengthy hearings as FCO lawyers claim issues of national security, including UK diplomatic relations, are at stake in rejecting the freedom of information request, Reprieve argues as a minimum that it is legitimate for the public to be told how human rights issues had been considered internally by foreign office diplomats and ministers in such cases. Reprieve’s lawyers have often been excluded from the lengthy hearings as FCO lawyers claim issues of national security, including UK diplomatic relations, are at stake in rejecting the freedom of information request.
Reprieve had sought the information in light of the the arrest and potential death sentence of British national, Khadija Shah.Reprieve had sought the information in light of the the arrest and potential death sentence of British national, Khadija Shah.
Shah, who was heavily pregnant at the time, was arrested with her two young children in May 2012 at Islamabad airport. She was subsequently charged with drug trafficking, an offence which carried a potential death sentence.Shah, who was heavily pregnant at the time, was arrested with her two young children in May 2012 at Islamabad airport. She was subsequently charged with drug trafficking, an offence which carried a potential death sentence.
Pakistan is listed as one of the Foreign Office’s “countries of concern” in its annual human rights report, and there are fears for hundreds on Pakistan’s death row, including many convicted of drug offences.Pakistan is listed as one of the Foreign Office’s “countries of concern” in its annual human rights report, and there are fears for hundreds on Pakistan’s death row, including many convicted of drug offences.
The government’s own guidance states UK officials involved in providing security and justice assistance to a third country undertake a written assessment of the human rights risks involved and potential mitigation measures. In many cases explicit ministerial authorisation should be sought, the guidance states.The government’s own guidance states UK officials involved in providing security and justice assistance to a third country undertake a written assessment of the human rights risks involved and potential mitigation measures. In many cases explicit ministerial authorisation should be sought, the guidance states.
The FCO refused to publish any of the written assessment on the grounds that the information may have been provided by the security services, a body that is exempt from the freedom of information act. In a submission discussed at the tribunalit also argued that even if the Foreign Office confirmed or denied the existence of any papers relevant to the request it “would be tantamount to revealing whether or not a ministerial authorisation had been sought or obtained”. The FCO refused to publish any of the written assessment on the grounds that the information may have been provided by the security services, a body that is exempt from the freedom of information act. In a submission discussed at the tribunal it also argued that even if the Foreign Office confirmed or denied the existence of any papers relevant to the request it “would be tantamount to revealing whether or not a ministerial authorisation had been sought or obtained”.
The submission continued: “The requests relate to the UK government’s view on Pakistan’s compliance or otherwise with its international human rights obligations. Any confirmation or denial provided by the public authority would be likely to generate discussion at senior diplomatic levels and that is likely to have an adverse effect on relations with Pakistan, other countries and/or on the UK’s wider interests abroad”.The submission continued: “The requests relate to the UK government’s view on Pakistan’s compliance or otherwise with its international human rights obligations. Any confirmation or denial provided by the public authority would be likely to generate discussion at senior diplomatic levels and that is likely to have an adverse effect on relations with Pakistan, other countries and/or on the UK’s wider interests abroad”.
The FCO rejected Reprieve’s freedom of information request in December 2013 and its appeal to the information commissioner was thrown out in August 2014. The first hearing of a further appeal to the tribunal was in February 2015. The hearing is likely to lead to a judgment in a month’s time.The FCO rejected Reprieve’s freedom of information request in December 2013 and its appeal to the information commissioner was thrown out in August 2014. The first hearing of a further appeal to the tribunal was in February 2015. The hearing is likely to lead to a judgment in a month’s time.
Substantial parts of the hearing have been held in private with lawyers from Reprieve debarred from the court, and its proceedings. Reprieve claims the government argument inserts a near blanket entitlement to “neither confirm nor deny” whether serious human rights risks were submitted for ministerial consideration.Substantial parts of the hearing have been held in private with lawyers from Reprieve debarred from the court, and its proceedings. Reprieve claims the government argument inserts a near blanket entitlement to “neither confirm nor deny” whether serious human rights risks were submitted for ministerial consideration.
This argument could be used to justify keeping even innocuous human rights assessments secret on the grounds they might imply other more concerning assessments exist, Reprieve states. Reprieve pointed out the FCO “publishes routinely a critique or assessment of Pakistan’s compliance with international human rights standards and raises human rights concerns in other contexts.This argument could be used to justify keeping even innocuous human rights assessments secret on the grounds they might imply other more concerning assessments exist, Reprieve states. Reprieve pointed out the FCO “publishes routinely a critique or assessment of Pakistan’s compliance with international human rights standards and raises human rights concerns in other contexts.
“It can be of no surprise to Pakistan that the UK is (properly) concerned by its human rights record. According to the FCO’s own reports, senior officials raise such concerns with Pakistan; in particular, given the UK’s well known stance on the death penalty, it can be of no surprise to Pakistan that in assessing whether to provide it with financial or other security assistance, the fact that it retains the death penalty would be an issue of particular concern to the UK”.“It can be of no surprise to Pakistan that the UK is (properly) concerned by its human rights record. According to the FCO’s own reports, senior officials raise such concerns with Pakistan; in particular, given the UK’s well known stance on the death penalty, it can be of no surprise to Pakistan that in assessing whether to provide it with financial or other security assistance, the fact that it retains the death penalty would be an issue of particular concern to the UK”.