LAST Wednesday the government announced an independent inquiry into the death of Iraqi civilian Baha Mousa.
Mousa, a hotel worker with a young family, was beaten and killed by British occupation troops in September 2003.
Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne announced in Parliament that there will be an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into Baha Mousa’s death and the torture and ill treatment of his nine hotel colleagues, and how it came about that five torture techniques banned in 1972 were re-introduced in Iraq.
Lawyers for the victims of scores of Iraqis tortured and killed whilst in the detention of UK forces when they occupied South East Iraq, on Wednesday released a letter dated 18 April 2008 to the Secretary of State for Defence.
In this they list all the incidents and matters that require to be included in this inquiry.
Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, who is acting in all these cases, said: ‘My clients call on the Secretary of State for Defence, as I have done repeatedly recently, to hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in SE Iraq.
‘This would need to get to the bottom of how it came about that the five techniques banned in 1972 – hooding, stressing, food and water deprivation, sleep deprivation and noise – were reintroduced as apparently Standard Operating Procedure for all Battle Groups.
‘Further, it would need to establish what lessons are to be learned not just from the death of Baha Mousa, but the torture of his hotel colleagues, the sexual and religious humiliation in play in that incident and in the Camp Bread Basket case, and the appalling evidence in the case arising from the ‘Danny Boy’ incident.
‘In this case, the most serious allegations that could be made about UK forces’ behaviour in Iraq include that 20 Iraqis were executed at Abu Naji facility in May 2004 another nine survivors tortured, and that bodies were mutilated.
‘It will not be sufficient if the inquiry has a narrow remit and does not look at all the cases and issues.
‘The public, as well as Parliament, must be given the opportunity of fully understanding what went wrong in our detention policy in Iraq and what are the lessons to be learned for the future.
‘Finally, this announcement has been slipped out at 8.10pm on the eve of a further hearing before Mr Justice Collins.
‘This has meant that, as usual, the survivors of these incidents and the families of the dead are the last to know about developments.
‘This is a disrespectful way for any government to behave.’
The letter referred to is addressed to ‘Ms N Smith, The Treasury Solicitors, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS.’
It states: ‘Your ref: LT7/1960K/NAS/1C
‘Our Ref: PS/bb/iraq HR /10100
‘18 April 2008
Dear Sirs,
‘R (on the application of Daoud Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence & others CO/5455/2007
‘We are attaching the Order of Mr Justice Collins of 16 April 2008. If we have not had written notification that your client will establish an inquiry that complies with the well known Strasbourg and domestic jurisprudence by close of business on Tuesday 6th May we will move with immediate effect to arrange the directions hearing before Mr Justice Collins in accordance with this Order.
‘We take the view that it would be helpful if we now drew together in a single letter the present incidents and cases that call for independent inquiries into various aspects of the UK detention policy in South East Iraq. We suggest in the strongest terms that this letter and its enclosures should be put to all relevant decision makers, including the Secretary of State for Defence, as this final decision is now made. We call on the Secretary of State for Defence to hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in South East Iraq. This single inquiry would have many components to include, inter alia, the following:
‘1. The Mousa incident: There is no need for us to repeat or attempt to summarise in this letter the lengthy representations made by our letter of 18 February 2008 and the attached lever arch file. Those representations speak for themselves.
‘2. The re-introduction of the techniques banned in 1972: Within the representations we refer to above there are voluminous, detailed and pressing allegations regarding issues of systematic abuse and systemic failings. Again we do not repeat or attempt to summarise those points in this letter. Whatever else is covered by a single inquiry there are pressing questions regarding the apparent reintroduction of hooding, stressing, sleep deprivation, food and water deprivation and noise. In particular the inquiry would need to establish how it came about that these techniques were reintroduced, whether or not interrogators and tactical questioners were trained in their use, whether or not there was a written policy on any of these matters including in particular hooding, and how that came about, and who knew about it and authorised it, and what was the role of Permanent Joint Headquarters, the senior military and relevant politicians in allowing the situation to come about where these techniques appear to have been reintroduced and used as Standard Operating Procedure by all Battle Groups in Iraq. We draw particular attention to our letter of 17 April 2008 in the new case of Kammash (referred to below) which strongly suggests that these techniques continued to be used well into 2007.
‘3. Majar Al Kabir: You are well aware of the allegations of executions, mutilations and torture now the subject of the proceedings in R (on the application of Al-Sweady and others) and the Secretary of State for Defence. There is no need for us to repeat those allegations in this letter as we know that you and all concerned with this decision are well aware of them. We take the view that these are the most serious allegations that could possibly be made regarding the conduct of UK Armed Forces anywhere in the world and the response from the government should reflect the seriousness of these issues. To date we are not satisfied that the response has been proportionate in the way we suggest. There is no doubt in our mind that if an inquiry is not volunteered a Divisional Court shortly will order there to be an independent inquiry as the evidence irrefutably establishes that this is a case where the State may be implicated.
‘4. Camp Bread Basket: You are of course well aware of this incident which was the subject of the Osnabruck Court Martial in February 2005. You are also aware that following our intervention on behalf of the nine victims of this incident, a criminal investigation has been reopened. Presently we are instructed to make a separate application for judicial review on behalf of our clients unless an independent inquiry into this incident is volunteered by the Secretary of State for Defence. The most sensible way for this matter to be dealt with without the need for litigation is for the Camp Bread Basket incident to be part of an overall inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in South East Iraq. Otherwise separate judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for Defence and possibly the Attorney General will have to follow.
‘5. Kammash: For the sake of convenience we attach our pre-action protocol letter sent yesterday on behalf of our five clients. You will note the serious allegations that our five clients were subjected to hooding, stressing and sleep deprivation and other abuse and ill-treatment violating Article 3 ECHR whilst held by UK forces in detention at the Basra airport facility in mid 2007. Again, this case raises extremely serious matters and requires a proportionate response.
‘6. Other incidents: We are aware, as you will be, of other incidents of death and abuse occurring at the hands of UK forces in military facilities. There is no need for us to list each and every incident in this letter. We are instructed in some of these cases as you are aware from the correspondence between the parties in the Al Skeini litigation. You are also aware of the opening words of Fragmented Order 152 of 20 March 2003 written by Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer referring to a number of other deaths in custody with various units in theatre. For the record we do not accept the explanation given to the BBC Panorama programme that Frago 152 referred only to two deaths and that these can be explained. We are satisfied from our own inquires that Frago 152 had in mind more than two deaths, although for obvious reasons we are not aware of the precise number of deaths. We are also aware that the International Committee for the Red Cross had separately reported to the UK government at various levels in May 2003 its concern about Article 3 treatment at the hands of UK forces.
‘For all of these matters we now call on the UK government through the Secretary of State for Defence to announce a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in South East Iraq with that inquiry having a remit that includes all of the above and one that is broad enough to get to the bottom of what went wrong within the UK’s detention policy in Iraq, who was responsible, and most importantly what are the lessons to be learnt for the future.
‘We look forward to hearing from you by close of business on Tuesday 6th May 2008.
‘Yours faithfully,
‘Public Interest Lawyers’.