TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction ...................................................................................................... 1Torture and ill-treatment goes on..................................................................... 3Torture and ill-treatment in Iraqi detention facilities...................................... 4Under the eyes of the Multinational Force.................................................... 8The legacy of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal............................................. 10Without charge or trial – detention by the Multinational Force ....................... 16Legal background to detentions by the Multinational Force ....................... 18Review process.......................................................................................... 21Review for internees held by the US forces............................................ 22Review for internees held by the UK forces............................................ 24Length of internment .................................................................................. 25Treatment of internees ............................................................................... 28Access to the outside world........................................................................ 31Visits by relatives.................................................................................... 32Visits by legal counsel ............................................................................ 33Visits by monitoring bodies ..................................................................... 33Secret and unacknowledged detention................................................... 35Internment of women and children ............................................................. 38“High Value” Detainees .............................................................................. 39Insufficient safeguards for detainees – no lessons learned? ......................... 41Amnesty International Recommendations ..................................................... 44To the Iraqi authorities................................................................................ 44To governments of countries contributing to the MNF – in particular the USand the UK ................................................................................................. 46

IntroductionNearly three years after United States (US) and allied forces invaded Iraq and toppledthe government of Saddam Hussain, the human rights situation in the country remainsdire. The deployment of US-led forces in Iraq and the armed response that engenderedhas resulted in thousands of deaths of civilians and widespread abuses amid theongoing conflict.As Amnesty International has reported elsewhere1, many of the abusesoccurring today are committed by armed groups opposed to the US-led MultinationalForce (MNF) and the Iraqi government that it underpins. Armed groups continue towage an uncompromising war marked by their disregard for civilian lives and thebasic rules of international humanitarian law. They commit suicide and other bombattacks which either target civilians or while aimed at military objectives aredisproportionate in terms of causing civilian casualties, and they abduct and holdvictims hostage, threatening and often taking their lives. Amnesty Internationalcondemns these abuses, some of which are so egregious as to constitute crimesagainst humanity, in addition to war crimes, and continues to call on Iraq’s armedgroups to cease such activities and abide by basic requirements of internationalhumanitarian law.In this report, Amnesty International focuses on another part of the equation,specifically its concerns about human rights abuses for which the US-led MNF isdirectly responsible and those which are increasingly being committed by Iraqisecurity forces. The record of these forces, including US forces and their UnitedKingdom (UK) allies, is an unpalatable one. Despite the pre-war rhetoric and post-invasion justifications of US and UK political leaders, and their obligations under1

international law, from the outset the occupying forces attached insufficient weight tohuman rights considerations. This remains the position even if the violations by theMNF that are the subject of this report do not have the same graphic, shock quality asthe images that emerged in April 2004 and February 2006 showing inmates beingtortured and humiliated by US guards at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison and Iraqiyouth being beaten by UK troops after they were apprehended during a riot. The samefailure to ensure due process that prevailed then, however, and facilitated - perhapseven encouraged such abuses – is evidenced today by the continuing detentionswithout charge or trial of thousands of people in Iraq who are classified by the MNFas “security internees”.The MNF has established procedures which deprive detainees of human rightsguaranteed in international human rights law and standards. In particular, the MNFdenies detainees their right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention before acourt. Some of the detainees have been held for over two years without any effectiveremedy or recourse; others have been released without explanation or apology orreparation after months in detention, victims of a system that is arbitrary and a recipefor abuse.Many cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees held in facilities controlledby the Iraqi authorities have been reported since the handover of power in June 2004.Among other methods, victims have been subjected to electric shocks or have beenbeaten with plastic cables. The picture that is emerging is one in which the Iraqiauthorities are systematically violating the rights of detainees in breach of guaranteescontained both in Iraqi legislation and in international law and standards – includingthe right not to be tortured and to be promptly brought before a judge.Amnesty International is concerned that neither the MNF nor Iraqi authoritieshave established sufficient safeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment.It is particularly worrying that, despite reports of torture or ill-treatment by US andUK forces and the Iraqi authorities, for thousands of detainees access to the outsideworld continues to be restricted or delayed. Under conditions where monitoring ofdetention facilities by independent bodies is restricted – not least, due to the periloussecurity situation – measures which impose further limitations on the contactdetainees may have with legal counsel or relatives increase the risk that they will besubject to torture or other forms of abuse.Amnesty International is calling on the Iraqi, US and UK authorities, who bothoperate detention facilities where persons detained by the MNF are held, to take

urgent, concrete steps to ensure that the fundamental human rights of all detainees inIraq are respected. In particular, these authorities must urgently put in place adequatesafeguards to protect detainees from torture or ill-treatment. This includes ensuringthat all allegations of such abuse are subject to prompt, thorough and independentinvestigation and that any military, security or other officials found to have used,ordered or authorized torture are brought to justice. It includes too ensuring thatdetainees are able effectively to challenge their detention before a court; the right todo so constitutes a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary detention and torture andill-treatment, and is one of the non-derogable rights which states are bound to upholdin all circumstances, even in time of war or national emergency.2

Karim R3, a 47-year old imam and preacher (khatib), was detained and tortured byUS forces in 2003 and then by Iraqi forces in 2005. On each occasion, he wassubsequently released uncharged. He told Amnesty International that he was firstdetained in October 2003 by US forces in Baghdad, where he lives and is head of acharity. He was insulted, blindfolded, beaten and subjected to electric shocks from astun gun (taser) by US troops at a detention facility in the Kadhimiya district ofBaghdad. After seven days of detention, he was released without charges.Karim R was again detained in May 2005 for 16 days – this time by forces ofthe Iraqi Interior Ministry at a detention facility they operated in Baghdad. During thisdetention, he was blindfolded and then beaten and subjected to electric shocks whilebeing hung up in a manner designed to cause him excruciating pain. He told AmnestyInternational:“They tied my hands to the back with a cable. There was an instrument with achain which was attached to the ceiling. When they switched it on the chainpulled me up to the ceiling. Because the hands are tied to the back this is evenmore painful (…) Afterwards they threw water over me and they used electricshocks. They connected the current to my legs and also to other parts of mybody. (…) The first time they subjected me to electric shocks I fainted for 40seconds or one minute. It felt like falling from a building. I had a headache andwas not able to walk. The interrogator said: You better confess to terroristactivities, in order to save your life. I responded that I was not involved inthese activities and that I had a heart condition. (…) Later they forced me toHuman Rights Committee, General Comment 29: States of Emergency, UN Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, paras 7 and 16.3At the person’s request the name is not published in this report.2

Torture and ill-treatment in Iraqi detention facilitiesIn the weeks leading up to Iraq’s parliamentary elections, held on 15 December 2005,new evidence emerged to indicate that the Iraqi Interior Ministry was holding manydetainees in different facilities under its control and subjecting them to torture and ill-treatment. On 13 November 2005, US military forces raided one detention facilitycontrolled by the Interior Ministry in the al-Jadiriyah district of Baghdad, where theyreportedly found more than 170 detainees being held in appalling conditions, many ofwhom alleged that they had been tortured. On 8 December 2005, Iraqi authorities andUS forces inspected another detention facility in Baghdad, also controlled by theInterior Ministry. At least 13 of the 625 detainees found there required medicaltreatment, including several reportedly as a result of torture or ill-treatment. The IraqiMinistry of Interior denied that any detainees had been tortured or abused.4However,the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, stated that “over 100” detainees foundat the detention facility in al-Jadiriyah and 26 detainees at the other detention locationhad been abused.5According to media reports, in both cases detainees alleged that they had beensubjected to electric shocks and had their nails pulled out.6An Iraqi Human RightsMinistry official subsequently told Amnesty International that the Iraqi authorities hadconducted medical examinations but that these had not confirmed the allegations.However, the official stated that several detainees had injuries caused by beating withplastic cables. Further, the official confirmed that abuses committed at other detentionfacilities under the control of Iraqi authorities over the past year included incidents ofdetainees having been subjected to electric shocks.7Months earlier, Human Rights Watch had drawn attention to increasing reportsof torture and ill-treatment of detainees by Iraqi government forces in a reportAn official of the Iraqi Interior Ministry was quoted saying that there had been “no mistreatment ortorture. …Only a few guys were slapped on their faces” (New York Times, Kirk Semple,IraqiMinistry Denies Captives Were Abused,13 December 2005).5New York Times, John F. Burns,To Halt Abuses, U.S. Will Inspect Jails Run by Iraq,14 December2005.6BBC, Caroline Hawley,Iraqi detainees tell of torture,24 November 2005,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4465194.stm; Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer,Abuse Cited In 2nd Jail Operated by Iraqi Ministry,12 December 2005.7Phone conversations on 4 and 5 February 2006.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/20064

published in January 2005. The report was based on interviews which Human RightsWatch had conducted with 90 detainees and former detainees between July andOctober 2004, 72 of whom disclosed that they had been tortured or ill-treated while indetention. Some had been held as criminal suspects but others had been detainedapparently because of their political activities or alleged affiliation with armedgroups.8Yet, despite the Human Rights Watch findings, little or no action appears tohave been taken by either the Iraqi government or the MNF in the months followingto address this pattern abuse, and to safeguard detainees from torture or ill-treatment.Unsurprisingly, in view of this failure to crack down on the torturers and endthe cycle of abuse, several detainees are reported to have died in 2005 while beingheld in the custody of the Iraqi authorities; in several cases, the bodies of the victimsreportedly bore injuries consistent with their having been tortured. On 12 February2005 three men, who were reportedly members of the Badr Organization,9a Shi’amilitia, died in custody after being arrested by Iraqi police at a police checkpoint inthe Zafaraniya district of Baghdad. The bodies of 39-year-oldMajbal ‘Adnan Latifal-Alawi,his 35-year-old brother‘Ali ‘Adnan Latif al-Alawi,and 30-year-old‘AidiMahassin Liftehwere found three days later, bearing marks of torture. Autopsyreports found “that all three had bruises on their faces, arms, backs, and legs,apparently from being struck with a stick or long object”.10After having been detained by a special police force of the Interior Ministry,the Wolf Brigade11, a 46-year-old housewife from Mosul,Khalida Zakiya,wasshown in February 2005 on the Iraqi TV channelal-‘Iraqiyaalleging that she hadsupported an armed group. However, she later withdrew this confession and alleged

Human Rights Watch,The New Iraq? Torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iraqi custody,January2005, Vol. 17 No. 1 (D).9The Badr Brigade, a Shi’a militia founded in the 1980s in Iran by Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim tofight Saddam Hussain’s government in Iraq, announced disarmament and renamed itself into BadrOrganization for Reconstruction and Development in 2003. It is affiliated to the Supreme Council ofthe Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) which is part of the Shia dominated United Alliance of Iraq(UAI). Under the Iraqi Transitional Government which was formed in April 2005, Bayan Jabr Solagh,a senior official of SCIRI became Minister of Interior.10Boston Globe, Anne Barnard,Deaths spur calls to overhaul Iraqi police,31 March 2005.11The Wolf Brigade, founded in October 2004, was given two months training by US military trainersbefore being deployed in security operations against armed groups (Knight Ridder, Hannah Allam,Wolf Brigade the most loved and feared of Iraqi security forces,21 May 2005). The Wolf Brigade hasreportedly resorted large-scale to secret detentions, torture and ill-treatment.

that she had been coerced into making it. She was reportedly whipped with a cable bymembers of the Wolf Brigade and threatened with sexual abuse.12In May 2005 four Palestinians who were long term residents of Iraq - ,Faraj‘Abdullah Mulhim,aged about 41,‘Adnan ‘Abdullah Mulhim,aged about 31,Amir ‘Abdullah Mulhim,aged about 26, andMas’ud Nur al-Din al-Mahdi,agedabout 33 – were tortured and ill-treated after they were detained by members of theWolf Brigade who took them from their homes in Baghdad. All four were seized onthe night of 12 May 2005, when Wolf Brigade forces stormed homes in the BaladiyatPalestinian Building within Baladiyat Camp in Baghdad. They were arrested assuspects in a bomb attack that had been carried out earlier that day in Baghdad’s al-Jadida district although they denied any involvement. Members of the Wolf Brigadewere said to have beaten the four men with rifle butts when they arrested them.On 14 May 2005, the four men were shown on the Iraqi TV channelal-‘Iraqiyyaadmitting responsibility for the al-Jadida bomb attack but all showedvisible signs of having been assaulted. Relatives who saw the programme toldAmnesty International that the four men had injuries to their faces which led them tosuspect that they had been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in order to force themto make confessions. Later, when the men gained access to a lawyer in July 2005 theyrepudiated their confessions and alleged that they had been systematically tortured for27 days while being held by the Wolf Brigade in a Ministry of Interior building in theal-Ziyouna district of Baghdad. They stated that they had been beaten with cables andhad electric shocks applied to their hands, wrists, fingers, ankles and feet. They alsosaid they were burnt on the face with lighted cigarettes and were placed in a roomwith water on the floor while an electric current was passed through. They alleged toothat a US military officer was present at one time in the room in which they werebeing interrogated.The four men also allege that they were forced under torture to signconfessions while they were blindfolded in which they also admitted responsibility forfive other bomb attacks said to have been committed at police stations in otherdistricts of Baghdad. However, when their lawyer looked into these other allegedbombings he found that they had never taken place and was able to obtain officialdocumentation to confirm this. Nevertheless, the four Palestinians were transferred tothe detention of the Major Crimes Directorate (mudiriyat al-jara’im al-kubra) in theRusafa district of Baghdad on 9 June 2005. At first, the senior officer at this place of12

detention reportedly refused to accept the four men because they were clearlysuffering from serious injuries. However, an investigating officer (dhabit al-tahqiq)reportedly listed all their injuries, so that it would be clear that they had not beeninflicted under his direction. Six weeks later, around 23 July, the Palestinians weretransferred to the detention centre in al-A’zamiya district of Baghdad, which dealswith cases involving terrorism in Iraq.According to Iraqi legislation, a detainee must be brought before aninvestigating judge within 24 hours of arrest.13However, the four Palestinians wereonly brought before an investigating judge on or about 26 July 2005, over five weeksafter their initial detention. At the beginning of 2006 the four Palestinians continuedto be held.In July, 2005, the UK’sObservernewspaper reported on further cases oftorture and other grave human rights abuses, including possible extrajudicialexecutions, by Iraqi security forces. The newspaper included a detailed description offilm footage showing the corpse ofHassan al-Nu’aimi,a Sunni cleric and member ofthe Association of Muslim Scholars, who was found dead in May 2005 in Baghdad –one day after he was detained by Iraqi police commandoes.The Observer’scorrespondent wrote:“There are police-issue handcuffs still attached to one wrist, from which hewas hanged long enough to cause his hands and wrists to swell. There are burnmarks on his chest, as if someone has placed something very hot near his rightnipple and moved it around. A little lower are a series of horizontal welts,wrapping around his body and breaking the skin as they turn around his chest,as if he had been beaten with something flexible, perhaps a cable. There areother injuries: a broken nose and smaller wounds that look like cigarette burns.An arm appears to have been broken and one of the higher vertebrae is pushedinwards. There is a cluster of small, neat circular wounds on both sides of hisleft knee. At some stage an-Ni’ami [sic] seems to have been efficiently knee-capped. It was not done with a gun - the exit wounds are identical in size to theentry wounds, which would not happen with a bullet. Instead it appears tohave been done with something like a drill. What actually killed him howeverwere the bullets fired into his chest at close range, probably by someonestanding over him as he lay on the ground. The last two hit him in the head.”14

The same month, July 2005, nine out of a group of 12 men who had beendetained by police in Baghdad’s al-‘Amirya district suffocated to death after theywere confined in a police van for up to 14 hours in extremely high temperatures. TheIraqi authorities said that the 12 were members of an armed group who had beendetained after they were engaged in an exchange of fire with US or Iraqi forces. Othersources, however, suggested that they were a group of bricklayers who had beendetained on suspicion that they were insurgents and then brutally tortured by policecommandoes before being confined in the police vehicle. Medical staff at theYarmouk Hospital in Baghdad, where the bodies of those who died were taken on 11July 2005, reportedly confirmed that some of them bore signs of torture, includingelectric shocks.15

Under the eyes of the Multinational ForceMNF officials have generally sought to distance the US-led alliance from anyinvolvement when there has been publicity regarding torture and other abuses by Iraqigovernment forces. However, the increasing availability of such information since atleast the beginning of 2005, as well as the continuing close day to day collaborationbetween MNF forces and those of the Iraqi government, suggests that MNFcommanders and the governments to which they are responsible have been well awarefor a considerable time that the Iraqi forces they support are responsible for grossabuses of human rights. Yet, as part of their cooperation with Iraqi government forces,the MNF continued to hand over some of those whom its forces detained into thecustody of Iraqi forces, despite the obvious risks to which this must expose suchprisoners. In this respect, the MNF would appear to have been either seriouslynegligent or, effectively, complicit in the abuses committed by Iraqi governmentforces and supine in their failure to make clear to the Iraqi government and its forcesthat torture and other violations against prisoners must not be tolerated, and that thosewho commit such abuse must be brought promptly to justice.16

Amnesty International,Iraq: Amnesty International calls for an investigation into death in custody ofnine men,14 July 2005, AI Index: MDE 14/017/2005.16States composing the MNF have obligations to implement their obligations under human rights lawin Iraq. For example, the Committee against Torture has stressed to the UK in relation to theapplicability of the Convention against Torture in Iraq that the “Convention protections extend to allterritories under the jurisdiction of a State party and considers that this principle includes all areassunder the de facto effective control of the State party' authorities.” Committee against Torture,Conclusions and Recommendations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland –Dependant Territories, UN Doc. CAT/C/CR/33/3, 10 December 2004.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006

That the US authorities have been aware of the problem of torture by theirIraqi allies is clear from the US Department of State’s annual report17to Congress onhuman rights practices around the world, whose February 2005 edition, reporting on2004, made extensive reference in its Iraq country chapter to information on torturepublished by Human Rights Watch.18However, it was not until December 2005,nearly a year after the State Department’s report was compiled, before a US militarycommander announced that his forces were suspending their practice of handing overdetainees to the Iraqi authorities, Major General John D. Gardner, commander of TaskForce 134, which is in charge of MNF detention operations, stated: “We will not passon facilities or detainees until they [the Iraqi authorities] meet the standards we defineand that we are using today”.19There have also been allegations that US forces knew that detainees werebeing tortured and ill-treated at places of detention under the control of the InteriorMinistry, which they frequently visited. In a radio interview in December 2005, aformer commander of special forces at the Interior Ministry, General Muntazar Jasimal-Samarra’i, identified several detention locations of the Interior Ministry wheretorture has allegedly been commonplace. He claimed: “The prison on al-Nasr Square,next to the TV-tower, it is the largest prison under the responsibility of the InteriorMinistry. Members of the US forces visited this prison every day. The US troopsknew everything about the torture”.20Former detainees who were subjected to torture or ill-treatment or whowitnessed the infliction of such abuses on fellow detainees while they were being heldin the custody of the Iraqi authorities, have told Amnesty International that suchincidents occurred with the knowledge or even in the presence of US troops.21TheNew York Timesreported an incident which occurred in March 2005 inSamarra following a joint raid by US troops and forces under the control of the IraqiInterior Ministry. The reporter described the beating of an Iraqi detainee by an Iraqipolice captain during which US troops were present: “Instead of a quick hit or slap,US Department of State,Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iraq,28 February 2005,http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41722.htm.18Human Rights Watch,The New Iraq? Torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iraqi custody,January 2005, Vol 17, No. 1 (D).19New York Times, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker,U.S., Citing Abuse in Iraqi Prisons, HoldsDetainees,25 December 2005.20Deutschlandradio, Marc Thorner,Urnengang im Schatten des taglichen Terrors,14 December 2005,http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/hintergrundpolitik/448279/.21See for example: Amnesty International:Ali Safar al-Bawy: a testimony,28 April 2005,http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-280405-testimony-eng.17

we now saw and heard a sustained series of blows. We heard the sound of thecaptain’s fists and boots on the detainee’s body, and we heard the detainee’s painedgrunts as he received his punishment without resistance.” A US Air Force captainpresent at the incident reportedly made the following comment: “If I think they’regoing to shoot somebody or cut his finger off or do any sort of permanent damage, Iwill immediately stop them (…) As Americans, we will not let that happen. In termsof kicking a guy, they do that all the time, punches and stuff like that.”22At the most senior levels, however, there appear to have been different viewswithin the US politico-military establishment as to the responsibility of US troopswho witness incidents of torture or ill-treatment. When questioned in November 2005about the use of torture by Iraqi authorities, US Secretary of Defense DonaldRumsfeld was reported to have responded that he did not consider that US soldierswho see “inhumane treatment” of detainees have an obligation to intervene to stop it.The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, General Peter Pace, interjected“If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they havean obligation to stop it”.23

The legacy of the Abu Ghraib prison scandalIn February 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) submitted areport to the Coalition Forces24which described serious violations of internationalhumanitarian law committed by these forces in Iraq. These included brutality againstprotected persons during their arrest and initial detention, sometimes causing death orserious injury, as well as various methods of torture and ill-treatment inflicted ondetainees. The public release of images in April 2004 showing detainees beingtortured and ill-treated by US soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison, caused worldwide shock,horror and outrage. The subsequent US military investigation in Iraq headed by MajorGeneral Antonio Taguba found that Coalition Forces were responsible for “systemic”and “illegal abuse of detainees” held at Abu Ghraib prison between August 2003 andFebruary 2004, and concluded that soldiers had “committed egregious acts and gravebreaches of international law at Abu Ghraib…”.25New York Times, Peter Maass,The Way of the Commandos,1 May 2005. In the same article PeterMaass describes another incident which occurred during his visit to Samara at a detention facilitywhere US troops and Iraqi security forces both operated. He witnessed “a leather-jacketed securityofficial [who] was slapping and kicking a detainee who was sitting on the ground”.23Washington Post, Dana Milbank,Rumsfeld’s War on ‘Insurgents’,30 November 2005.24With the disestablishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in June 2004 the termCoalition Forces has been replaced by the Multinational Force.25The “Taguba Report” on Treatment of Abu Ghraib Prisoners In Iraq, Article 15-6 Investigation of the800th Military Police Brigade, http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200622

Amnesty International interviewed former detainees who disclosed that theywere among the prisoners subjected to torture and ill-treatment in US custody at AbuGhraib. They included women who said they had been beaten, threatened with rape,subjected to humiliating treatment and long periods of solitary confinement. Someformer detainees told Amnesty International that they had been forced to lie on theground while handcuffed and hooded or blindfolded for long periods. They wererepeatedly beaten, restrained for prolonged periods in painful “stress” positions andsome were also subjected to sleep deprivation, prolonged standing, and exposure toloud music and bright lights, apparently intended to cause disorientation.Other testimonies of detainees who were tortured or ill-treated at Abu Ghraibprison were documented by human rights organizations and in the media. Maledetainees complained that they were deliberately degraded by being forced tomasturbate in front of female soldiers and to wear women’s underwear. They werekept naked, sometimes for several days. Detainees were assaulted and threatened withrape. They alleged too that they were forced, in breach of their religious beliefs, to eatpork, to drink alcohol and to move about on all fours in imitation of dogs.The videotaped testimony of one Abu Ghraib victim,Hussein Mutar,wasshown in evidence to a US military court martial sitting in Texas, USA, in January2005. Hussein Mutar had reportedly been detained on suspicion of car theft and wastortured and ill-treated while held at Abu Ghraib in November 2003.26In the evidencelaid before the court martial, he identified himself as one of a number of prisoners in aphotograph taken by a US guard at the prison which showed several naked maledetainees being forced to lie on top of one another. He also spoke of his feelings ofhumiliation and shame when US guards forced him to masturbate over fellow inmates:“I couldn’t imagine it in the beginning that this could happen. But I wished for mydeath, that I could kill myself, because no one over there would stop what was goingon”.27Following the worldwide disclosure of the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraibin April 2004, the US authorities undertook various inquiries and reviews, and court-martialed a number of the US prison guards who were depicted in photographsabusing prisoners. These investigations, however, have mostly been internal militaryinvestigations which appear to have focused on the culpability of those within theBBC,Abu Ghraib inmates recall torture,12 January 2005,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4165627.stm.27CounterPunch,Voices from Abu Ghraib -The Injured Party,20 January 2005,http://www.ccmep.org/2005_articles/civil%20liberties/012005_counterpunch.htm.26

lower echelons of the military, not on the role and responsibilities of those higher upthe chain of command, including at the most senior levels. For example, on 10 March2005, the US authorities released a summary of the findings of a review carried out byVice Admiral Albert T. Church, Inspector-General of the US Navy which had beeninitiated by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in May 2004. The reviewfound “no connection between interrogation policy and abuse”.28Only the executivesummary was made public and the remainder of the 378-page Church Report remainsclassified. It was revealed, however, that the Church investigation failed to interviewany Iraqi detainees or former detainees. Nor did it interview Secretary Rumsfeld.The US authorities have stated on numerous occasions that its regime ofdetention in Iraq has fundamentally changed since abuses at the Abu Ghraib prisonwere exposed. The US government’s second periodic report to the UN CommitteeAgainst Torture of June 2005 states: “The Department of Defense has improved itsdetention operations in Iraq and elsewhere, improvements have been made basedupon the lessons learned, and in part because of the broad investigations and focusedinquiries into specific allegations. These comprehensive reports, reforms,investigations and prosecutions make clear the commitment of the Department ofDefense to do everything possible to ensure that detainee abuse such as occurred atAbu Ghraib never happens again.”29However, there continue to be reports of tortureand ill-treatment of detainees by US troops, which have occurred since the AbuGhraib prison scandal was exposed.30While dozens of US soldiers have been court-martialed in connection with theabuse of detainees, senior US administration officials have remained free fromindependent scrutiny. According to the US government, as of 1 October 2005 therehad been 65 courts-martial in connection with the abuse of detainees in Iraq.31In June2004, two US marines were sentenced to eight and 12 months’ imprisonment by amilitary court in Iraq. Both men had pleaded guilty to giving electric shocks to anIraqi prisoner at al-Mahmudiya prison, south of Baghdad.32At least nine US soldierswere tried before US military courts for their involvement in the high-profile incidentsof torture or ill-treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. Sentences ranged from

non-custodial disciplinary measures to 10 years’ imprisonment.33According to the USgovernment, 54 military personnel could be implicated in the incidents at Abu Ghraibprison.34Amnesty International is concerned that several of those tried and convictedby US military courts for committing serious human rights violations in Iraq,including torture or ill-treatment, have received sentences that fail to reflect thegravity of these violations.In September 2004, a 1st Lieutenant in the US Army was referred to trial bycourt-martial on charges including conspiracy, aggravated assault, involuntarymanslaughter and obstruction of justice. The case involved incidents on 5 December2003 in which an Iraqi detainee was forced into the Tigris River near Balad, and on 3January 2004 in which two Iraqi detainees were forced off a bridge into the Tigrisnear Samarra. One of the detainees, 19-year-oldZaidoun Hassoun,drowned in thelatter incident. The lieutenant was facing a maximum sentence of 29 years’ in prison.In the event, he was sentenced to 45 days’ confinement following a two-day court-martial in Fort Hood, Texas, on 14 and 15 March 2005. Based on a pre-trialagreement, the commanding authority did not pursue the manslaughter charge and thesoldier instead pleaded guilty to assault charges.35On 23 January 2006, a US court martial convicted a US army interrogator ofthe killing of‘Abd Hamad Mawoushand sentenced him to forfeit $6,000 of hissalary over the next four months, to receive a formal reprimand and spend 60 daysrestricted to his home, office and church. ‘Abd Hamad Mawoush, a major general inthe Iraqi army under the government of Saddam Hussain, died in a US detentionfacility in Al Qaim in northwest Baghdad on 26 November 2003, two weeks after hehad handed himself in to the US military. He died after being interrogated whileallegedly being rolled back and forth with a sleeping bag over his head and body, andthe interrogator sat on his chest and placed his hands over his mouth. According towitness testimony, the interrogator also stood by while Iraqi personnel of the USCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) subjected ‘Abd Hamad Mawoush to a brutalbeating with hoses. The convicted interrogator had faced a maximum penalty of lifeArmy News Service, L.B. Edgar,Court sentences England to 3 years,28 September 2005,http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7988. Army News Service, L.B. Edgar, Harmanfound guilty for Abu Ghraib, 19 May 2005, http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7348.34United States of America, Update to Annex One of the Second Periodic Report of the United Statesof America to the Committee Against Torture, 21 October 2005.35 th7 Infantry Division and Fort Carson Public Affairs Office, Press release,Court martial verdict andsentence,16 March 2005.33

imprisonment on charges of murder. However, the court martial found him guilty oflesser charges of “negligent homicide and dereliction of duty,” which carries amaximum of three years’ imprisonment.36Several UK soldiers have also been charged in connection with alleged tortureor ill-treatment and the deaths of detainees. On 21 December 2005, the Court ofAppeal of England and Wales ruled in a case arising from the death in September2003 of 26-year old Baha Dawoud Salem al-Maliki (also known as Baha Mousa) andthe deaths of five other Iraqis in the case of R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State forDefence. Delivering judgment, Lord Justice Brooke recounted what had occurredwhen UK troops raided a Basra hotel, where Baha Moussa worked as a receptionist,on the morning of 14 September 2003. The troops, who were seeking to locate one ofthe partners who ran the hotel:“roundedup a number of the men they found there, including Baha Mousa.Baha Mousa' father, Daoud Mousa, had been a police officer for 24 yearssand was by then a colonel in the Basrah police. He had called at the hotel thatmorning to pick up his son at the end of his shift, and he told the … lieutenantin charge of the unit that he had seen three of his soldiers pocketing moneyfrom the safe. During this visit he also saw his son lying on the floor of thehotel lobby with six other hotel employees with their hands behind their heads.The lieutenant assured him that this was a routine investigation that would beover in a couple of hours. Colonel Mousa never saw his son alive again. Fourdays later he was invited by a military police unit to identify his son' deadsbody. It was covered in blood and bruises. The nose was badly broken, therewas blood coming from the nose and mouth, and there were severe patches ofbruising all over the body. The claimants’ witnesses tell of a sustainedcampaign of ill-treatment of the men who were taken into custody, one ofwhom was very badly injured, and they suggest that Baha Mousa was pickedout for particularly savage treatment because of the complaints his father hadmade. The men who were arrested had been taken from the hotel to a Britishmilitary base in Basrah City called Darul Dhyafa”.37Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Riccardi,No Jail Time in Death of Iraqi General,24 January 2006.See also: Amnesty International:United States of America: Guantanamo and beyond: The continuingpursuit of unchecked executive power,13 May 2005, AI Index: AMR 51/063/205, pages 110-115.37[2005] EWCA Civ 1609, see paras 28 and following, in Lords Justice Brooke’s judgment. The Al-Skeini case was one of six test cases brought by the families of Iraqi civilians who are alleged to havebeen tortured or killed by UK soldiers during the UK occupation of South-Eastern Iraq. In the samejudgment, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales also ruled that the UK Human Rights Act 1998(HRA) is in principle capable of having extra-territorial effect when a person falls within the“jurisdiction” of the UK under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andAmnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200636

Court-martial proceedings have since been instituted, although trials have yetto take place, against seven military personnel, including the commanding officer whohas been charged with negligent performance of duty. Three of the seven militarypersonnel have been charged with “inhuman treatment” of the detainee.38In another case, UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith announced in July2005 that four UK soldiers would stand trial in connection with the death ofAhmedJaber Karim ‘Ali,one of four men detained on suspicion of looting in May 2003 inBasra. It has been alleged that UK servicemen, allegedly punched and kicked thesuspects and then forced them into the Shat Al-Basra canal, causing Ahmed JaberKarim ‘Ali to drown.39In a further case, a court martial convicted three UK soldiers in February 2005of abusing detainees in May 2003 at Camp Breadbasket, near Basra, and sentencedthem to between 140 days and two years’ imprisonment.40Members of the MNF have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi criminaland civil law, as stipulated by United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution 1546(2004) with its attached exchange of letters between the Iraqi and US authorities.Investigations into human rights violations committed by the MNF in Iraq and thebringing to justice of those responsible, therefore, are entirely in the hands of theirown national authorities. Amnesty International is concerned that militaryinvestigations and prosecutions in connection with human rights violations committedby members of the MNF may not meet international standards of impartiality.Amnesty International considers that the torture and ill-treatment to whichprisoners in Abu Ghraib prison and other places of detention controlled by occupying

Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Thus, the Court held that the HRA can apply to UK authoritiesoutside the territory of UK. The Court also held that the lower court had been wrong to draw the line at“quasi-territorial” premises such as a UK-run prison in Iraq, since the ECHR concept of jurisdictionwas in principle broader than that. For example, it could extend to a person who was under arrest at anIraqi hotel. However, the Court held that the notion of jurisdiction was not broad enough to includepersons who were at liberty and not yet in the control of UK forces. Finally, the Court held that that thesystem for investigating deaths at the hands of UK armed forces personnel was seriously deficient,including in its lack of independence from the commanding officer, and it needed to be scrutinized.38BBC,UK soldiers face war crimes trials,20 July 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4698251.stm.39CNN,British trio charged with war crimes,19 July 2005,http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/19/britain.iraq/.40The Guardian, Audrey Gillan,Soldiers in Iraq abuse case sent to prison,26 February 2005.

Without charge or trial – detention by the MultinationalForceSince the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 tens of thousands of people have beendetained by foreign forces, mainly the US forces, without being charged or tried andwithout the right to challenge their detention before a judicial body. Between August2004 and November 2005 an administrative review board (the Combined Review andRelease Board),43composed of representatives of the MNF and the Iraqi government,examined the files of almost 22,000 internees and recommended about 12,000 forrelease and another 10,000 for continued detention.44The vast majority of “securityinternees” - that is those individuals held in connection with the on-going armedconflict who are considered by the MNF to be a threat to security - have never beentried. According to statistical data compiled by the MNF, by the end of November2005, the Central Criminal Court of Iraq had tried 1,301 alleged insurgents.45In reference to the situation of detainees held by the MNF in Iraq, the UNSecretary General Kofi Annan stated in his report to the Security Council in June2005: “One of the major human rights challenges remains the detention of thousandsof persons without due process (…).Prolonged detention without access to lawyersand courts is prohibited under international law, including during states of

Torture or inhuman treatment is a grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention according toArticle 147. Grave breaches are war crimes according to international law, as reflected in the RomeStatute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8 (2-ii)). The Geneva Conventions were fullyapplicable in Iraq during the occupation until the handover of power on 28 June 2004. Cruel treatmentand torture in non-international armed conflict are also war crimes under the Rome Statute of theInternational Criminal Court (ICC).42The UN and the ICRC have both declared that the occupation of Iraq ended on 28 June 2004,following the had-over of power from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to the Interim IraqiGovernment.43See section titled ‘Review for internees held by the US forces’ for further detail.44Multinational Force,Combined Review and Release Board,Last Update on 28 November 2005,http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Release.htm.45Multinational Force,Central Criminal Court,Last Update on 28 November 2005, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Trials.htmAmnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006

emergency”.46The US rejected the accusations claiming that all detainees had accessto due legal process and their rights under the Geneva Conventions.47The UN Assistance Mission for Iraq has also expressed concern about thesituation of people interned by the MNF in Iraq, commenting in its Human RightsReport of September 2005: “Mass detentions of persons without warrants continue tobe used in military operations by MNF-I. Reports of arbitrary arrest and detentioncontinue to be reported to the Human Rights Office. There is an urgent need toprovide remedy to lengthy internment for reasons of security without adequatejudicial oversight”.48Most “security internees” are held at four detention facilities under US control,namely Camp Bucca near Basra, Abu Ghraib prison49in Baghdad, Camp Cropper inBaghdad and Fort Suse near Suleimaniya, which started operating at the end ofOctober 2005.50In addition, US forces hold detainees temporarily in various brigadeand division internment facilities throughout the country.51A small number of“security internees” are held in the custody of UK forces at the detention facility ofShu’aiba Camp, near Basra. According to the UK’s Foreign and CommonwealthOffice, at the end of October 2005, the UK forces held 33 security internees, none ofwhom were women or children, in their detention facility at al-Shu’aiba.52At the beginning of 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) headedby US ambassador Paul Bremer published a list of about 8,500 detainees on theInternet. However, the true figure of those then being held was believed to be muchhigher.53When the CPA was disbanded in June 2004, the number of detainees held bythe Coalition Forces had fallen to about 6,400 persons, according to a US militaryUN Doc. S/2005/373, UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph30 of resolution 1546 (2004), 7 June 2005, para. 72.47Reuters,US rejects UN critique of its Iraq prisoner policy,9 July 2005.48United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI):Human Rights Report, 1 July – 31 August2005,September 2005, http://www.uniraq.org/aboutus/HR.asp49One part of Abu Ghraib Prison is under the control of the US forces and another by Iraqi authorities.50Multinational Force,New Theater Internment Facility opens in northern Iraq,30 October 2005,http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Releases/Oct/051030b.htm.51For example, at the end of November 2005 the US forces were holding an estimated 650 detainees atbrigade and division internment facilities (Multinational Force,Number of security detainees,LastUpdate 28 November 2005, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Numbers.htm).52See web site of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited in January 2006,http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1032786062920.53For example, it appears that many non-Iraqi detainees and scores of so-called High Value Detainees -many of whom were held at that time already for months - had not been recorded on that list.46

official.54However, since the handover of power the number of detainees held by theMNF has increased steadily.In November 2004, General Geoffrey Miller, then US head of Iraqi detaineeoperations, stated that about 8,300 detainees were held by the MNF.55On 1 April2005, the US Department of State estimated the number of detainees at about 10,000persons.56According to the official website of the MNF, at the end of November2005 there were more than 14,000 security detainees held in MNF custody,distributed over the four main US controlled detention centres as follows: Abu Ghraibprison (4,710 detainees), Camp Bucca (7,365 detainees), Camp Cropper (138detainees) and Fort Suse (1,176 detainees), as well as various military brigade anddivision internment facilities (650 detainees).57

Legal background to detentions by the Multinational ForceFollowing the US-led invasion in March 2003, Iraq was in a state of internationalarmed conflict. Consequently, persons deprived of their liberty by the occupyingforces were protected – in addition to applicable human rights law -- by internationalhumanitarian law, namely the Third (Convention relative to the Treatment ofPrisoners of War) or the Fourth (Convention relative to the Protection of CivilianPersons in Time of War) Geneva Conventions of 1949. The deprivation of liberty of aperson which is ordered by the executive power without bringing charges against thatperson is referred to as administrative detention or internment. The Fourth GenevaConvention, applicable in situations of international armed conflict, states thatinternment “may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes itabsolutely necessary”.With the handover of power in June 2004 the legal situation changed; sincethen Iraq is considered to be in a situation of non-international armed conflict with theMNF and the Iraqi security forces on one side and the insurgents on the other.Therefore, the Geneva Conventions no longer fully apply to persons detained inconnection with the ongoing armed conflict. In this situation, all parties including theMNF, are bound by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, and bycustomary rules applicable to non-international armed conflicts, as well as humanAgence France Press,Coalition to keep 4,000 to 5,000 prisoners after Iraq handover,13 June 2004.Washington Post, Bradley Graham,Offensives Create Surge of Detainees,27 November 2004.56US Department of State: Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the UNCommittee Against Torture, submitted on 6 May 2005.57Multinational Force,Number of security detainees,Last Update 28 November 2005,http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Numbers.htm. It appears that these numbers do not include thedetainees held by UK forces.5554

rights law. Article 3 common to the Four Geneva Conventions requires that thoseplaced in detention are treated humanely, though it does not contain detailedprovisions regulating such detention.Since the handover of power, the MNF refer to UN Security CouncilResolution 1546 as providing the legal basis for the MNF forces to hold people indetention in Iraq. Resolution 1546, with its attached exchange of letters between, forthe US, Secretary of State Colin Powell and, for Iraq, Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi,confer on the MNF authority to resort to “internment where this is necessary forimperative reasons of security”. Unfortunately, there is no reference in Resolution1546 to the legal safeguards that are to apply to arrests, detention or internmentcarried out by armed forces and troops from countries contributing to the MNF. TheUK and the US have stated, however, that their internment policies are also governedby Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Memorandum No. 3 (revised) of June2004,58which sets out the process of arrest and detention of criminal suspects as wellas procedures relating to “security internees” detained by members of the MNF after28 June 2004.This CPA Memorandum, which was revised only one day before the handoverof power, details the authority of the MNF to detain people in Iraq. It elaborates someprocedural details regarding detentions by the MNF and distinguishes between“criminal detainees” and “security internees”.59With regard to criminal detainees thedocument stipulates: “(…) the MNF shall have the right to apprehend persons who aresuspected of having committed criminal acts and are not considered security internees(hereafter: “criminal detainees”) who shall be handed over to the Iraqi authorities assoon as reasonably practicable”.60The Memorandum established some basic rules for the detention of “securityinternees”, concerning review procedures, access to internees and other aspects oftheir conditions, and the maximum period of internment of children.61CPAMemorandum No.3 provides that anyone who is interned for more than 72 hours isentitled to have the decision to intern them reviewed within seven days and thereafterat intervals of no more than six months. The Memorandum also states that the

“operation, condition and standards of any internment facility established by the MNFshall be in accordance with Section IV of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.62Procedures set out in the CPA Memorandum and those which have beendeveloped in practice are crucially flawed because they fail to meet internationalhuman rights standards guaranteeing the rights of detainees –including, notably, theright to have access to legal counsel and the right to challenge the lawfulness of thedetention before a court.In addition to the provisions of international humanitarian law related to non-international armed conflict set out above, human rights law remains applicable toIraq. The US, the UK and Iraq are all states parties to the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides basic safeguards for the protectionof detainees. As affirmed by the UN Human Rights Committee (the expert UN bodyresponsible for overseeing the implementation of the ICCPR), internationalhumanitarian law and human rights law fully complement one another during times ofarmed conflict.63The relevant treaties governing non-international armed conflict64do not contain specific rules regarding questions such as for what duration and underwhat procedures (Protocol II explicitly accepts internment but does not regulate it),persons may be interned. It is human rights law that squarely addresses this question.Amnesty International considers the MNF system of security internment inIraq to be arbitrary - in violation of fundamental human rights. All detainees,including security internees, are protected by Article 9 of the ICCPR, which providesthat no-one should be subjected to arbitrary detention and that deprivation of libertymust be based on grounds and procedures established by law (para 1). Detainees mustalso have access to a court empowered to rule without delay on the lawfulness of theirdetention and to order their release if the detention is found to be unlawful (para 4).65These requirements apply to “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest ordetention” and therefore apply fully to those interned by the MNF.Section IV of the Fourth Geneva Convention contains “Regulations for the treatment of internees”.Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation on StatesParties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (2004), para. 11: “…the Covenantapplies also in situations of armed conflict to which the rules of international humanitarian law areapplicable. While, in respect of certain Covenant rights, more specific rules of internationalhumanitarian law may be specially relevant for the purposes of the interpretation of Covenant rights,both spheres of law are complementary, not mutually exclusive.”64Article 3 Common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Articles 4-6 of Additional Protocol II of 1977.65Article 9 para. 4 of the ICCPR: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest of detention shall beentitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on thelawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful”.6362

The ICCPR (under Article 4) does allow for derogation of some provisions ofthe Covenant during proclaimed states of emergency, including at a time of armedconflict. However, measures derogating from the Covenant are allowed only if and tothe extent that the situation constitutes a threat to the life of the nation. The HumanRights Committee has emphasized that “States parties may in no circumstancesinvoke Article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation ofhumanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance …. througharbitrary deprivations of liberty “.66Neither the US nor the UK governments, however,have taken the steps necessary formally to derogate from any of their obligationsunder the ICCPR (which derogation requires that governments notify the HumanRights Committee formally of their intention to derogate from relevant ICCPRprovisions).At all times, internees must be provided the right to an effective remedy(ICCPR Article 3(2)), includinghabeas corpus,so that a court may decide withoutdelay on the lawfulness of the detention and order release if the detention is not lawful(Article 9(4)).67A person detained on suspicion of criminal activity must be broughtpromptly before a judge (ICCPR Article 9(3)) and either released or provided a fairtrial before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law (ICCPR Article14).

Jawad M68, an Iraqi national who worked for the US forces at military bases inBaghdad, was detained by US forces in August 2004. In October 2004 he received adocument from the Office of the Deputy Commanding General, Detainee Operations,Multinational Force-Iraq which informed him about an upcoming review session andincluded the following one-sentence accusation: “Gathering of information oninterpreters and employees with the Multinational Force”. No further explanation orreference to any relevant legislation was provided. He was not charged or tried.Reviews of his case were conducted by an administrative body before which he wasnot permitted to appear. Following his release from Abu Ghraib prison at thebeginning of 2005, Jawad M told Amnesty International that he still did not know theHuman Rights Committee, General Comment 29, States of Emergency (article 4), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001), para. 11.67Human Rights Committee, General Comment 29, States of Emergency (Article 4), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 (2001), para. 16.68At the person’s request the name is not published in this report. The full name of the person with theprisoner sequence number is known to Amnesty International.66

reasons for his internment. He said: “It was useless. I was there for five months and Iknew that nobody can do anything. Until now I don’t know why they sent me to theprison and why I was released and whose decision that was.”The case of Jawad M illustrates the way in which many internees are detainedarbitrarily by the MNF. In violation of international human rights law, tens ofthousands of internees have been held for weeks or months and thousands for morethan one year without being charged or tried and with no right to challenge thelawfulness of their detention before a judicial body. They have received noinformation regarding the grounds for their detention, whether they will be chargedand brought to trial or, if not, for how long they are likely to be detained.As detailed below, the US and UK have established separate systems forreviewing cases of internees held by their respective forces. Both systems have incommon that they fail to meet international human rights law and standards -including the requirement for court oversight of the detention. Despite theinvolvement of consultative bodies in the process, the ultimate decision about therelease or continued internment of a person lies with military commanders.

Review for internees held by the US forcesThe MNF’s internment procedures were criticised by Iraqi Justice Minister ‘Abd al-Hussain Shandal in September 2005. Speaking toReutersnews agency, hecomplained: “No citizen should be arrested without a court order (…) There is abuse[of human rights] due to detentions, which are overseen by the Multinational Force(MNF) and are not in the control of the Justice Ministry”.69Since the handover of power in mid-2004, however, the Iraqi authorities haveparticipated in reviewing cases of internees held by the MNF in line with changesannounced by the US Department of Defense in August 2004.70After the handover, a body called the Combined Review and Release Board(CRRB) was established, comprising two representatives each from the Iraqiministries of Justice, the Interior and Human Rights and three MNF officers. Thisbody reviews the cases of internees and makes recommendations regarding theirrelease or continued detention – according to Human Rights Ministry officials theserecommendations are made by majority and none of the board’s members has a powerReuters, Mariam Karouny and Alastair Macdonald,Iraq Slams U.S. Detentions, Immunity for Troops,14 September 2005.70US Department of Defence, US Central Command, News Release, Detainee Release Board takes onIraqi Partners, 4 August 2004.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200669

of veto – but its recommendations are not binding and it is the MNF’s DeputyCommanding General for Detainee Operations who decides whether or not a detaineeshould be released after first consulting Iraq’s Minister of Justice.71The US government’s 2005 report to the UN Committee against Tortureprovided the following description of the detention review process: “Upon capture bya detaining unit, a detainee is moved as expeditiously as possible to a theaterinternment facility. A military magistrate reviews an individual’s detention to assesswhether to continue to detain or to release him or her. If detention is continued, theCombined Review and Release Board assumes the responsibility for subsequentlyreviewing whether continued detention is appropriate.”72CPA Memorandum No. 3 stipulates that the review within seven days must befollowed by further reviews at intervals of no more than six months. In practice, theseappear generally to be respected with some reviews being done at more frequentintervals. In considering cases, the CRRB has three possible options to recommend:unconditional release, release with a suitable guarantor from the detainee’scommunity, or continued internment. Neither the internee nor his or her legalcounselare permitted to be present during these case reviews, though internees havereportedly been encouraged to make submissions to the CRRB in writing.Between the establishment of the CRRB in August 2004 and 28 November2005, the CRRB reviewed the files of 21,995 internees, of whom 4,426 wererecommended for unconditional release, 7,626 for release with a guarantor and 9,903for continued internment.73According to the US Department of Defense, the CRRBwhen making a decision is to take into consideration the “circumstances of thedetainee’s capture, the length of detention prior to review, the level of cooperation bythe detainee, and the detainee’s potential for further acts of anti-Iraqi misconduct ifreleased”.74

Over the last year Amnesty International delegates met with representatives of the Iraqi HumanRights Ministry on several occasions. On 13 November 2005 a delegate of Amnesty International metwith the Acting Human Rights Minister Nermin Othman in Amman.72Second Periodic Report of the USA to the Committee Against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/48/Add.3,29 June 2005, Annex 1, Part Two.73Multinational Force,Combined Review and Release Board,Last Update on 28 November 2005,http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Release.htm. As of 28 November 2005 the exact numbers ofreviewed detainee files was 21,995 of which 12,052 were recommended for unconditional orconditional release.74US Department of Defence, US Central Command, News Release,Detainee Release Board takes onIraqi Partners,4 August 2004.

In its report to the UN Committee against Torture, the US government referredto the practice of having a military magistrate conduct the initial review within sevendays, but such reviews appear generally to be paper-based reviews, in which theinternee’s file is considered without his being present.In one case that received considerable media attention, however, a securityinternee was permitted to be present during the review of his detention conducted byUS military officers. But the review procedure followed in the case of 44-year-old USnationalCyrus Kar,a filmmaker, differed from the normal procedure. Kar and hiscameraman,Farshid Faraji,were detained on 17 May 2005 by Iraqi security forceswhile riding a taxi in Baghdad. Whilst Farshid Faraji was held for almost two monthsin detention by the Iraqi authorities, Cyrus Kar was handed over to the US forces. Karwas denied access to a lawyer during his detention but on 4 July 2005 he was broughtbefore a review board composed of three US military officers. He was released on 10July, after which he commented: “I couldn’t have more respect for the rank-and-filesoldiers, but the system is broken. When an Iraqi is detained there, he comes outangry and wanting payback”.75

Review for internees held by the UK forcesCases of detainees interned by UK forces are reviewed by the Divisional InternmentReview Committee (DIRC), which is composed entirely of MNF officials. Itsmembers are the UK military chief of staff, another senior officer, the chief legalofficer and another legal officer and the chief political advisor.76However, the finaldecision as to whether a detainee should continue to be interned or released rests withthe Governing Officer Commanding (GOC).The initial review has to take place within 48 hours77of internment andthereafter monthly.78An interned person may address written submissions to theDIRC, but neither the internee nor his or her legal representative may be present whenthe DIRC reviews the internee’s case.The GOC informs internees in writing, stating the reasons, when it isdetermined that they should continue to be interned. However, Amnesty InternationalNew York Times, Tim Golden,How a Trip to Film in Iraq Ended in a Military Jail Cell,24 July2005.76Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights – Annual Report 2005,July 2005, page 63,http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119526503628.77This is shorter than the seven days period specified by the CPA Memorandum No.3.78Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights – Annual Report2005, July 2005, page 64.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200675

is concerned that even after months of internment the MNF continues to holdinternees without providing them or their legal counsel with substantive evidence tojustify their detention.For example, a 48-old dual national with UK and Iraqi citizenship,Hillal‘Abdul Razzaq ‘Ali al-Jedda,has been detained since his arrest on 10 October 2004in Baghdad. He filed a case against the UK Secretary of State for Defence challenginghis internment in Iraq which was dismissed by the High Court of England and Waleson 12 August 2005. However, the court noted that “Although detained for imperativereasons of security, the claimant has not been charged with any offence; and theSecretary of State acknowledges that, as matters stand, there is insufficient materialavailable which could be used in court to support criminal charges against him. Theclaimant is therefore detained simply on a preventive basis.”79In mid-February 2006,Hillal ‘Abdul Razzaq ‘Ali al-Jedda continued to be held without charge or trial by UKforces. In January 2006, an appeal against the decision of the High Court was heard inthe Court of Appeal of England and Wales but judgment was still awaited in mid-February.

Length of internmentDifferent provisions exist for detainees held by the MNF since before the mid-2004transfer of power to a new Iraqi government and those detained since that time.Detainees in the first category may be held indefinitely, whereas those detained andinterned since 30 June 2004, according to CPA Memorandum No. 3, “must be eitherreleased from internment or transferred to the Iraqi criminal jurisdiction no later than18 months from the date of induction into an MNF internment facility.”This requirement of release after 18 months is not absolute, however. Even thedetainees interned after the handover can be held for more prolonged periods at theapproval of the Joint Detention Committee (JDC). This requires that an application forfurther internment is made to the JDC two months before the expiry of the initialinternment period of 18 months; if the JDC sanctions continued internment it mustspecify the duration. According to the Human Rights Annual Report 2005 of the UKForeign and Commonwealth Office, published in July 2005, the JDC had still to beconvened for UK-held internees because none of them by then had been held for as

long as 18 months.80In mid-February 2006 an application for the extension ofinternment beyond 18 months of 266 detainees had been made to the JDC.81Amnesty International is concerned about hundreds of security internees whohave been detained by the MNF since before the handover of power and may be heldindefinitely. In a letter to Amnesty International dated 19 February 2006, MajorGeneral Gardner, commander of Task Force 134, which is in charge of MNFdetention operations, stated that at the end of 2005 the number of security interneesheld for more than 18 months was estimated to be 751.82The letter confirmed thatapproval by the JDC to keep an internee beyond 18 months is only required for those“internees detained after 30 June 2004”.83Amnesty International considers indefinite internment as practiced by theMNF with regard to security internees held since before the handover of power to beunlawful. According to The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions (establishedby the UN Commission on Human Rights): “Withregard to derogations that areunlawful and inconsistent with States’ obligations under international law, theWorking Group reaffirms that the fight against terrorism may undeniably requirespecific limits on certain guarantees, including those concerning detention and theright to a fair trial. It nevertheless points out that under any circumstances, andwhatever the threat, there are rights which cannot be derogated from, thatin no eventmay an arrest based on emergency legislation last indefinitely,and it is particularlyimportant that measures adopted in states of emergency should be strictlycommensurate with the extent of the danger invoked.”84Amnesty International also considers that indefinite internment may constitutea violation of the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment. Any deprivation of liberty, even when carried out inaccordance with international humanitarian law, inevitably causes some stress or adegree of mental suffering to the internee and his or her family, although this will notForeign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights - Annual Report 2005,July 2005, page 63.According to the report a JDC for UK-held security internees would comprise British representatives atAmbassador or equivalent level.81Letter of 19 February 2006 to Amnesty International by Major General Gardner, Commanding MNFTask Force 134.82All security internees who had been held for more than 18 months by the end of 2005 must havebeen placed in internment before the handover of power.83Letter of 19 February 2006 to Amnesty International by Major General Gardner, Commanding MNFTask Force 134.84Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/2004/3, 15 December 2003,para. 60.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200680

automatically render the deprivation unlawful. However, Amnesty International isconcerned that the “security internees” held by the MNF, are being deprived of theirliberty in circumstances that cause unnecessary suffering, such as indefinite andincommunicado detention, that cannot be justified as an unavoidable part of a “lawfulsanction”.85The UN Committee against Torture has found that administrativedetention by a party to an armed conflict may constitute cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment or punishment, basedinter aliaon its excessive length86In addition, theHuman Rights Committee has referred to prolonged, indefinite “administrativedetention” as incompatible with Article 7 of the ICCPR, which prohibits, among otherthings, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.87Indefinite detention causes uncertainty and mental anguish for many interneesin Iraq - some of whom have been held for more than two years. Many relatives ofdetainees with whom Amnesty International has been in regular contact haveexpressed their despair. For example, in January 2006 the organization received thefollowing email communication sent by a man whose brother had been held foralmost two years:“Thank you for your e-mail and your concern about my brother. There is nochange and no development in the case. And it is very difficult to visit himbecause he is now in Basra. And there are a lot of problems facing Sunnis whogo to Basra in order to visit their relatives. Besides it is very difficult to getpermission from American soldiers to visit him. And there isn’t any charge.Now we lost the hope to get him again.”The number of long-term detainees has reportedly increased since September2005. According to the Iraqi Human Rights Ministry, on 28 September 2005 therewere 1,443 detainees held by MNF for more than one year. However, according tofigures provided by US officials, in early November 2005 among the nearly 13,900Reports in recent years on persons held in indefinite detention in the context of the “war on terror”have shown the severe psychological effects of such detention. For instance, in October 2004, in areport on the mental health of detainees held at the time indefinitely in Belmarsh high security prison,in the UK, under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act (2001), eminent psychiatrists concludedthat the detainees had become seriously clinically depressed and were suffering from anxiety, some ofthem becoming psychotic as a result of their indefinite detention. (Professor Ian Robbins, Dr JamesMacKeith, Professor Michael Kopelman, Dr Clive Meux, Dr Sumi Ratnam, Dr Richard Taylor, DrSophie Davison and Dr David Somekh,The Psychiatric Problems of Detainees under the 2001Antiterrorism Crime and Security Act,13 October 2004,http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/nov/belmarsh-mh.pdf ).86Report of the Committee against Torture, UN Doc. A/53/44. 16 September 1998, para. 283(b).87Human Rights Committee, Annual Report, vol.1 (1998), UN Doc. A/53/40, para.317.85

detainees held by the MNF there were some 3,800 who had by then been held formore than one year and more than 200 who had been held for more than two years.88Amnesty International knows of internees who at the beginning of 2006 hadbeen held for more than two years without having been charged or tried. For example,Kamal Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Jibouri,a 43-year-old former soldier marriedwith 11 children, continued to be held in early February 2006, after some two years indetention without charge or trial. He was detained on 5 February 2004 by US troopsin the al-Khusum village of the Salaheddin governorate. He was held at Abu Ghraibprison initially, but transferred to Camp Bucca, near Basra, in May 2005. Since histransfer, it has become particularly difficult for his relatives to visit him. Two relativesof Kamal Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Jibouri, both aged about 40, were also detained byUS troops on 5 February 2004 in al-Khusum village. At least one of the two wasreportedly transferred at the end of 2005 to Fort Suse, near Suleimaniya in northernIraq. As of February 2006, both men, like Kamal Muhammad ‘Abdullah al-Jibouri,continued to be held without charge or trial.

Treatment of interneesAlthough the US authorities introduced various measures to safeguard prisoners afterthe Abu Ghraib prison scandal, there continue to be reports of torture or ill-treatmentof detainees by US troops. In September 2005 several members of the US NationalGuard’s 184th Infantry Regiment were sentenced to prison terms in connection withtorture or ill-treatment of Iraqis who had reportedly been detained in March 2005following an attack on a power plant near Baghdad.89According to media reports theabuse involved the use of an electro-shock gun on handcuffed and blindfoldeddetainees.90TheLos Angeles Timesreferred to a member of the battalion havingreported that “the stun gun was used on at least one man’s testicles”.91The abuse was investigated after a soldier who was not involved in themistreatment discovered film footage showing parts of the abuse on a laptop computer.At least twelve soldiers from the National Guard’s 184th Infantry Regiment wereAssociated Press, Katherine Shrader:US has detained 83,000 in war on terror,16 November 2005.The Los Angeles Times initially reported that the incident occurred in June 2005 (Los AngelesTimes, Scott Gold and Rone Tempest,Army Probes Guard Unit,27 July 2005), but in a later report thenewspaper referred to March 2005 (Los Angeles Times, Scott Gold and Rone Tempest:More TumultBesets Guard Unit in Iraq,15 October 2005).90Associated Press, Jeremiah Marquez,California Guard sergeant gets year in Iraq detainee abusecase,10 September 2005.91Los Angeles Times, Scott Gold and Rone Tempest:More Tumult besets Guard Unit in Iraq,15October 2005.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200688

charged with misconduct “relating to abuse and maltreatment of detainees”. Threesergeants were sentenced to between five and twelve months of imprisonment andfour other soldiers were sentenced to hard labour.92In another incident, five soldiers from the 75th Ranger Regiment were chargedbefore a court martial in connection with allegations of detainee abuse. The case arosefrom an incident on 7 September 2005 when three detainees were allegedly punchedand kicked by the five US soldiers as they were awaiting movement to a detentionfacility.93On 21 December 2005 it was announced that the five soldiers had beensentenced to be confined for periods ranging from 30 days to six months andreductions in rank.94Amnesty International has noted that in the above cases, US officials haveapparently taken swift action to investigate the allegations of abuse and to prosecutethe perpetrators. However, given that torture or ill-treatment have continued, theorganization is concerned that insufficient safeguards have been put in place in orderto protect detainees from the recurrence of abuse.Amnesty International has interviewed former detainees and relatives ofdetainees held by the MNF about treatment of detainees after the handover of powerin June 2004. In one reported incident an electro-shock gun (taser) was used againstdetainees in circumstances which violate international human rights law prohibitingtorture or ill-treatment. According to an eye-witness in November 2005 a US guard atCamp Bucca used a taser against two detainees while they were being transferred in avehicle to a medical appointment within the detention facility, shocking one on thearm and the other on his abdomen.Electro-shock weapons have been developed as a non-lethal force option to beused to control dangerous or combative individuals. Amnesty International considersthat electro-shock weapons are inherently open to abuse as they can inflict severe painwithout leaving substantial marks, and can further be used to inflict repeated shocks.Under CPA Memorandum No. 3, the MNF was required to ensure thatconditions and standards in all of its internment facilities satisfy Section IV of the

Fourth Geneva Convention,95which sets out standards for the treatment of detainees,including in relation to food, hygiene and the provision of medical attention, as wellas contact with the outside world and penal and disciplinary sanctions.96Article 119 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that internees may notbe punished other than by fines, discontinuance of privileges, fatigue duties – whichmay only be “in connection with the maintenance of the place of internment” and notexceed two hours daily - and confinement. Article 119 further provides: “In no caseshall disciplinary penalties be inhuman, brutal or dangerous for the health of internees.Account shall be taken of the internee’s age, sex and state of health.”Despite this, former internees have alleged that disciplinary or penal sanctionshave been used which breach the above provisions of the Fourth Geneva Conventionand appear also to constitute a violation of international human rights treatiesprohibiting torture or ill-treatment. In particular, internees at Camp Bucca are allegedto have been exposed deliberately to extremes of both heat and cold, by being made towait for hours in the heat of the sun while their accommodation was searched andforcibly showered with cold water and exposed to cold air conditioners.Amnesty International has previously expressed concern to the US authoritiesregarding their use of a restraint chair for detainees in Iraq. On 28 October 2005, JohnMoore of Getty Images photographed an individual – reportedly a juvenile detained inthe maximum security section of Abu Ghraib prison - strapped into a four-pointrestraint chair. US Army military police reportedly said that he was being “punishedfor disrespecting them” and would remain for two hours in the chair “as punishment”.The photograph showed the detainee tightly immobilized. He had straps acrosshis chest and his wrists and ankles were bound, with his legs bent at the knee, and hishead was thrown back. Such a position would appear to carry a significant health riskas well as cause discomfort and pain. Prolonged immobilization in restraints is knownto carry a risk of blood clots or asphyxia. On 15 December 2005, AmnestyInternational wrote to the MNF Task Force 134, which is responsible for DetaineeOperations in Iraq, stating that the organization would “consider the manner ofrestraint shown to amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and in violationof the US’s obligations under international human rights treaties”.Although the Fourth Geneva Convention no longer applies to the situation of Iraq, the MNF havereferred to its standards. In the letter by Colin Powell attached to Security Council Resolution 1546, itis stated that “the forces that make up the MNF are and will remain committed at all times to actconsistently with their obligations under the law of armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions.”96CPA Memorandum No. 3, sections 6, para 4.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/200695

Access to the outside worldCPA Memorandum No. 3 is deficient in several respects insofar as the question ofaccess to detainees is concerned. In particular, while it provides for the ICRC to haveaccess to detainees it qualifies this, stating that access by the ICRC can be denied “forreasons of imperative necessity as an exceptional and temporary measure”.98There are no regulations spelled out in the Memorandum regarding internees’right of access to relatives or legal counsel. It states that the provisions of section 4 ofthe Fourth Geneva Convention apply, which include some reference to contact withrelatives and legal counsel, but it makes no reference to other international standardsrelating to the rights of detainees, such as The Body of Principles for the Protection ofAll Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and the Declaration onthe Protection of All Persons From Enforced Disappearance.Amnesty International is concerned that the MNF’s failure to guaranteedetainees’ access to the outside world, including to their families and to legal counsel,has been a contributory factor facilitating torture and ill-treatment and other humanrights abuses of detainees. Such denial of access poses a continuing risk of furthersuch abuses.99

Visits by relativesDuring the first weeks after arrest detainees held by US forces of the MNF have noaccess to their families or legal counsel. According to theDetainee visitation rulesand guidelinesissued by the US military in July 2005, security internees are notentitled to receive visits during the first 60 days of internment.100US forces have imposed these restrictions also in high profile cases. Forexample,Ali Omar Ibrahim Al-Mashhadani,a 36-year-old cameraman forReutersnews agency, was arrested on 8 August 2005 in Ramadi by US forces after a search ofhis house. Reuters Global Managing Editor Director, David Schlesinger, protestedthe decision to detain the cameraman without any charges and the restrictions on hisaccess to the outside world: “I am shocked and appalled that such decision could betaken without his having access to legal counsel of his choosing, his family or hisemployers.”101Despite this protest, Ali Omar Ibrahim Al-Mashhadani could not bevisited before the expiry of the 60 days limit. His family visited him for the first timeon 7 October 2005 at Abu Ghraib prison. He was transferred to Camp Bucca, nearBasra, the same day. He was released in mid-January 2006 without having beencharged or tried.Internees held by the UK forces have also complained about delayed access tothe outside world.Hillal ‘Abdul Razzaq ‘Ali al-Jedda,a 48-year-old dual nationalwith UK and Iraqi citizenship,102was arrested at his sister’s house in Baghdad on 10October 2004 by US troops who were accompanied by Iraqi security forces. Hereported that during his arrest he was beaten, forced to the floor, hooded and tightlyhandcuffed, causing pain. At Baghdad Airport he was handed over to the UK forcesand transferred to the UK-controlled Shu’aiba Divisional Temporary DetentionFacility, near Basra. For the first 28 days of his detention he was reportedly held insolitary confinement in a small and badly ventilated cell. He claims that his familywas only informed about his whereabouts 33 days after his detention.103According tothe UK authorities “[s]tandard operating practices require the MNF to inform relativesof the detention of internees within 24 hours of their internment”.104Multinational Force, Detainees visitation rules and guidelines, 7 July 2005, http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Releases/July/050709a.htm; http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Visitation.htm.101Reuters,Reuters cameraman held in Abu Ghraib,31 August 2005.102See also previous reference to the case in section:Review for internees held by UK forces.103See also Mr Justice Moses’ judgment: “Although the claimant has made some complaints about hisinitial treatment by US troops and about aspects of the conditions of his detention and interrogation,they are not in issue in the present proceedings. It is the lawfulness of the detention itself that is inissue.”, R (on the application of Al-Jedda) v Secretary of State for Defence, paragraph 8, [2005]EWHC 1809.104Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights – Annual Report 2005,July 2005, page 64.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006100

Some relatives of detainees have told human rights organizations, includingAmnesty International, that for weeks or months they were not able to establish thewhereabouts of a detainee. The Christian Peacemaker Teams reported the case of‘Adnan Talib Hassan Al-‘Unaibi,an imam in the town of Hilla, who was detainedby US forces on 1 May 2004 while attending a public meeting at the premises of alocal human rights organization.105During the raid US forces reportedly killed twopeople. After the detention a brother of the imam went to the Iraqi Assistance Centre(IAC)106in Baghdad to find out his whereabouts. However, the detention was onlyconfirmed at the end of May 2004 after the brother had obtained more informationfrom released detainees – including the prisoner’s sequence number. Despitenumerous inquiries, relatives were not able to establish ‘Adnan Talib Hassan Al-‘Unaibi’s whereabouts for several months. They were only allowed to visit him afterhe had been in detention for five months. He was eventually released uncharged inSeptember 2005.In principle, internees are entitled to four visits per month or one visit perweek after they have passed the first 60 days of detention. However, relatives havefrequently reported that they were not able to conduct visits, because the detentionfacility was located far away and travelling long distances in Iraq is unsafe.

Visits by legal counselAfter the first 60 days of internment, internees are entitled to receive visits by legalcounsel. Amnesty International has asked numerous relatives of internees, formerinternees, lawyers and human rights activists about the possibilities of securityinternees seeking the support of legal counsel. It appears that visits of securitydetainees by legal counsel are extremely rare. The main reason for this seems to bethe belief that it is futile to seek legal counsel when the detainee will not be broughtbefore a court of law. Former internees and lawyers alike have told AmnestyInternational they did not believe that a lawyer could have significantly furthered thecase of a security internee.

due to security considerations. According to the ICRC in the period from May toSeptember 2005 “the main detention/internment facilities covered during that periodwere Camp Cropper (Baghdad Airport); Camp Bucca near the southern town of Basra;and several detention places in Kurdistan”.107According to the MNF, the ICRC has“access to all Theater Internment Facilities in the theatre”108Amnesty Internationalunderstands from this that the ICRC does not have access to brigade and divisioninternment facilities of the MNF – that is, military bases where detainees are mainlyheld during the first days or weeks of their detention.Therefore, in many locations of detention under MNF control, no independentbody is currently able to monitor the treatment of detainees held by the MNF. Yet,visits to places of detention by independent monitoring bodies are an importantsafeguard for persons deprived of their liberty. Visits enable experts to examine atfirst hand the conditions of detention and treatment of detainees and to makerecommendations for improvements. Visits can have a deterrent effect against abuseand provide a necessary link for detainees with the outside world.According to the UK authorities, the ICRC has “full and unrestricted access”to its detention facilities in Iraq and the ICRC has described conditions of internmentas “generally good”.109The Iraqi Human Rights Ministry is conducting periodic visits to detentionfacilities under the control of the MNF. The ministry has opened an office at AbuGhraib prison which is also monitoring the situation of internees held by the MNF.The ministry is circulating regular reports on its monitoring activities concerning thesituation of detainees in Iraq. An official of the ministry told Amnesty Internationalthat its monitoring includes occasional visits to brigade and division internmentfacilities of the MNF.110Several UN human rights experts have faced obstacles in their attempts to visitdetainees held by the US forces – including those held in Iraq. In a statement issuedon 18 November 2005, five independent experts of the UN Commision on HumanRights – including the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on ArbitraryInternational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC):Operational update, Iraq: ICRC activitiesbetween May and September 2005,30 September 2005,http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList322/083F20662037E9A1C12570A40040FCD6.108Multinational Force,Humane Treatment of Detainees,Last Update on 28 November 2005,http://www.mnf-iraq.com/TF134/Humane.htm109Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights – Annual Report 2005,July 2005, page 64.110Phone conversations on 4 and 5 February 2005.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006107

Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment – expressed their regret about the US refusal ofterms for a fact finding mission to the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay,Cuba.111This statement followed a letter of 25 June 2004 and several follow-up letterssent by UN human rights experts to the US authorities requesting to visit “thosepersons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations,in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Guantanamo Bay military base and elsewhere”.112At thetime of writing none of the five UN human rights experts had been able to visit USdetention facilities in Iraq.

Secret and unacknowledged detentionThe US has held an unknown number of persons detained in Iraq without any contactwith the outside world in violation of international standards. These so called “ghostdetainees” were largely hidden to prevent the ICRC from visiting them.On 17 June 2004, US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld admitted that inNovember 2003 he ordered military officials to detain a senior member of Ansar al-Islam113without listing him in the prison’s register. This prisoner was reportedlyarrested in late June or early July 2003 and was transferred to an undisclosed locationoutside Iraq. He was returned to Iraq where he was detained in secret until May 2004without being registered or assigned a prison register number.114There are indications that persons detained in Iraq have secretly beentransferred outside Iraq for interrogation by the CIA. For example,Hassan Ghul,aPakistani national reportedly detained in January 2004 in northern Iraq, is accordingto Human Rights Watch possibly held in CIA custody.115According to a report in theSwiss newspaper,Der Sonntagsblick,a confidential communication of the EgyptianForeign Ministry to its embassy in London intercepted by the Swiss secret service,stated that Egyptian intelligence could confirm that 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens haveUnited Nations press release,Human Rights Experts “deeply regret” United States refusal of termsfor fact-finding mission to Guantanamo,18 November 2005. The other three experts for whom accessto the detainees was requested are the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers,the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standardof Physical and Mental Health and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief.112United Nations press release,Human Rights Experts “deeply regret” United States refusal of termsfor fact-finding mission to Guantanamo,18 November 2005.113Ansar al-Islam is an armed Islamist group based in Kurdistan, particularly around Halabja. It hasbeen responsible for grave human rights abuses, including the deliberate killing of civilians.114BBC,Red Cross to study ghost detainees,18 June 2004,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3818883.stm.115Human Rights Watch,List of “Ghost Prisoners” Possibly in CIA Custody,30 November 2005.111

been interrogated by US intelligence agents at the military air base MihaelKogalniceanu in Rumania. The communication further stated that similarinterrogation centres existed in the Ukraine, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bulgaria.116In at least one incident US officials have tried to cover up the death of anunacknowledged detainee in Iraq.Mandel al-Jamadiwas detained by US troops andplaced in Abu Ghraib prison where he died on 4 November 2003 as an unregistereddetainee. Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under the USFreedom of Information Act, suggest that Mandel al-Jamadi died due to “blunt forceinjuries complicated by compromised respiration”.117US officials have defended the practice of denying detainees’ access to theICRC for purposes of “imperative military necessity”.118Under Article 143 of theFourth Geneva Convention, ICRC visits to civilian internees may be denied “forreasons of imperative military necessity”, but “only as an exceptional and temporarymeasure”. In Iraq in January 2004, the US authorities invoked “military necessity”when they refused to grant the ICRC access to eight detainees held in Abu Ghraib.According to the Fay report119, one of the eight detainees, a Syrian national, was atthat time held in a tiny dark cell without windows, toilet or bedding. The inhumanetreatment of this Syrian detainee, facilitated by the invocation of “military necessity”,was not limited to solitary confinement in harsh conditions. Around 18 December2003, he was abused and threatened with dogs. According to the US military, there isa photograph of him kneeling on the floor with his hands tied behind his back, whilean unmuzzled dog is snarling a few feet from his face. During an ICRC visit in mid-March 2004, the organization’s delegates were again denied access to him, and otherdetainees, on the grounds of “military necessity”. In January and March 2004, theICRC questioned the “exceptional and temporary” nature of the denial of access. Bythe time of its March visit, the Syrian detainee had been held incommunicado andunder interrogation for four months.120Der Sonntagsblick, Sandro Brotz and Beat Jost,US-Folter Camps: Der Beweis,8 January 2006,http://www.blick.ch/sonntagsblick/aktuell/artikel30413.117American Civil Liberties Union,U.S. Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations inAfghanistan and Iraq,24 October 2005.http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html.118United States Department of Defense,Defense Department Regular Briefing,17 June 2004,http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040617-secdef0881.html.119“Fay Report”, AR 15-6 Investigation of Intelligence Activities at Abu Ghraib, Conducted by MajorGeneral George R. Fay and Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones, page 66,http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2004/d20040825fay.pdf.120Amnesty International,United States of America: Human dignity denied:Torture and accountabilityin the ‘war on terror’,27 October 2004, Amnesty Index: AMR 51/145/2004.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006116

US military investigations have suggested that up to 100 so-called ghostdetainees may have been held in US detention facilities in Iraq.121However, theChurch report summary of March 2005 stated that “the practice of DOD [Departmentof Defense] holding ‘ghost detainees’ has now ceased”.122The practice of holding detainees in secret, with no contact with the outsideworld, places the person outside the protection of the law, denying them importantsafeguards and leaving them vulnerable to torture and ill-treatment. They have noaccess to lawyers, families or doctors. They are often kept in prolonged arbitrarydetention without charge or trial. They are unable to challenge their arrest or detention,whose lawfulness is not assessed by any judge or similar authority. Their treatmentand conditions are not monitored by any independent body, national or international.The secrecy of their detention allows the concealment of any further human rightsviolations they suffer, including torture or ill-treatment, and allows governments toevade accountability.In certain circumstances, when people are held in secret detention and theauthorities refuse to disclose their fate or whereabouts, they have “disappeared”. Thispractice, known as enforced disappearance, is expressly prohibited under internationallaw.123International law requires that any person deprived of their liberty must beheld in an officially recognized place of detention.Enforced disappearance violates the rules of international law which providefor, among others, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right toliberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture or otherill-treatment. It also violates - or constitutes a grave threat to - the right to life. Incertain circumstances, enforced disappearance can also be a crime againsthumanity.124International human rights bodies have held that secret detention and enforceddisappearances themselves constitute ill-treatment or torture, in view of theconsiderable suffering of persons detained without contact with their families orWashington Post, Bradley Graham and Josh White,General Cites Hidden Detainees,10 September2004.122http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050310exe.pdf.123See the 1992 UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, andthe draft International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.124Amnesty International:‘Disappearances’ in the ‘war on terror’,3 November 2005, AI Index: ACT40/013/2005.121

Internment of women and childrenCPA Memorandum No.3 includes provisions for the internment of children: “Anyperson under the age of 18 interned at any time shall in all cases be released not laterthan 12 months after the initial date of internment”.125According to the UK authorities, there are no UK or US detention facilitiesallocated for women or children in Iraq. They further stated that at US detentionfacilities women and juveniles are segregated from adult males unless they aremembers of the same family.126As of October 2005 UK authorities were not holdingany women or children in detention.127At the end of September 2005 there were about 200 juveniles held by theMNF who were scheduled to be transferred shortly to the jurisdiction of the IraqiMinistry of Labour and Social Affairs.128The newspaperal-Sharq al-Awsatreportedin December 2005 that the Iraqi Judicial Council had appointed a judge to dealspecifically with cases of detained juveniles held by the MNF.129At the end of January 2006 a US military spokesman announced the release offive woman detainees, while four others remained held by the US forces.130

CPA Memorandum No.3, section 6, para 5.Foreign and Commonwealth Office,Human Rights - Annual Report 2005,July 2005, page 63.127See web site of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited January 2006,http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1032786062920.128Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights,Detention Places and Numbers of Detainees according toinformation provided by the Ministry of Human Rights,28 September 2005.129al-Sharq al-Awsat,Majlis al-Qada’ al-‘Iraqi yanzur qadaya al-ahdath al-muhtajizin lada al-quwatal-muta’addida al-jinsiya (The Iraqi Judicial Council Looks into Juvenile Cases under the Control ofthe Multinational Force),23 December 2004,http://www.aawsat.com/sections.asp?section=4&issue=9887.130BBC,US releases Iraqi women prisoners,26 January 2006,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4649714.stm.126

“High Value” DetaineesThe vast majority of detainees who were held or continue to be held by the MNFwithout charge or trial are so called “security internees” – that is, persons detained inthe context of the ongoing armed conflict. In addition, US forces continue to hold so-called high value detainees – a category which has mainly been used for persons withsenior positions under Saddam Hussain’s government.131CPA Order No. 99 refers toa Memorandum of Understanding between the MNF and Iraqi authorities regarding“the handling of High Value Detainees.”132Amnesty International requested a copy ofthat document from the US government, but to date has not received this.133At least two “high value” detainees have died in custody under circumstancessuggesting that torture or ill-treatment caused or contributed to their deaths.‘AbdHamad Mawoush,a major general in the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussain, died inUS detention on 26 November 2003 after having a sleeping bag forced over his headand body and one of his interrogators sat on his chest. On 23 January 2006, a US courtmartial convicted a US army interrogator of his killing and sentenced the soldier toforfeit $6,000 of his salary.134Muhammad Mun’im al-Izmerly,a 65-year-oldchemical scientist, was detained in April 2003 and taken to Camp Cropper where hedied in January 2004. An autopsy report found that he “died from a sudden hit to hishead”.135The group of “high value” detainees included former prisoners of war (POW)who are now standing trial. Some former POWs, including Saddam Hussain, havebeen referred to the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal136(formerly known as IraqiSpecial Tribunal). Although standing before an Iraqi court, Saddam Hussain and

It is unclear whether or not this category of “high value detainees” is confined to those with seniorpositions in Saddam Hussain’s government. The term has mainly been used in the context ofinvestigations into the existence of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq. The report of the SpecialAdvisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction defines a “highvalue” detainee as a detainee who holds relevant knowledge or insight due to his or her senior positionin the military, security, scientific/technical, or governmental structures under Saddam Hussain’sgovernment. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/glossary .html).132CPA Order No. 99, 27 June 2004, section 4.133Letter of Amnesty International to Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defence, 17 December 2004.134The Denver Post, Arthur Kane,Iraqi General beaten two days before death,5 April 2005. See also:Los Angeles Times, Nicholas Riccardi,No Jail Time in Death of Iraqi General,24 January 2006. Formore details on the case see section above:The legacy of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.135Human Rights First,Twenty Seven Detainee Homicides in U.S. Custody,19 October 2005,http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2005_alerts/etn_1019_dic.htm.136Also referred to as Iraqi Higher Tribunal.

several others continue to be held in the custody of the MNF at the request of the Iraqiauthorities.According to MNF Task Force 134, in mid-February 2006 thirteen “highvalue” detainees continue to be held without charge or trial. Their cases were said tobe subject to review by the High Value Detainee Special Review Committee,described as a “U.S. Government panel staffed by military and civilian security andintelligence specialists qualified to assess security threat, as well as by representativesof the Regime Crimes Liaison office, which acts in support of the Iraqi HigherTribunal”.137Earlier, the US government stated in its report to the UN Committee AgainstTorture, that US forces in Iraq were holding a “small number of enemy prisoners ofwar (EPW)”.138These apparently included persons who had been detained as POWsbetween March 2003 and June 2004, and therefore should have been released orcharged at the end of the occupation on 28 June 2004.Amnesty International calls on the Iraqi Authorities and the internationalcommunity to ensure that all persons who have been responsible for human rightsviolations under the government of Saddam Hussain are brought to justice in trialsconforming to international standards. However, according to Amnesty International’sinformation - nearly three years after the demise of Saddam Hussain’s government -some former officials of that government continue to be held without charge or trial.Most of the “high value” detainees – if not all of them – are currently beingheld at Camp Cropper, a detention facility of the US forces near Baghdad Airport.Relatives of “high value” detainees have reported restrictions on visits. According to aformer detainee at Camp Cropper, visits by relatives are generally only allowed onceevery three months. For example,Huda Salih Mehdi ‘Ammash,the only femalemember of the Revolutionary Command Council under Saddam Hussain’sgovernment, was reportedly permitted family visits on only four occasions during herdetention from May 2003 until November 2005.In December 2005, several “high value” detainees were released withouthaving been charged or tried. They included two women scientists, namely (the above

Insufficient safeguards for detainees – no lessonslearned?International human rights law contains safeguards to protect the fundamental rightsof people held in detention – including the right not be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) stipulates: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment of punishment.”Further rights of detainees are guaranteed in Article 9 of the ICCPR accordingto which no-one should be subjected to arbitrary detention (para 1). In addition everydetainee must have access to a court empowered to rule without delay on thelawfulness of their detention and order their release if the detention is unlawful (para4).Iraq and all 27 countries140who were contributing at the end of 2005 to theMNF are state parties to the ICCPR. In addition, all 27 countries contributing to theMNF are state parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).Even though Iraq is not a state party to the CAT, the absolute prohibition oftorture and ill-treatment is regarded as part of customary law, binding on all states,from which no derogation is allowed at anytime, even in times of emergency or war.International humanitarian law, which Iraq is bound to observe, also containsprovisions that expressly prohibit torture and ill-treatment during both internationaland non-international armed conflicts.Furthermore, Iraqi law prohibits the use of torture and ill-treatment. Article 35of the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 prohibits “all forms of torture, mental or physical,and inhuman treatment”. Although not fully consistent with the definition of tortureNew York Times, John F. Burns:24 Ex-Hussein Officials Freed from U.S. Custody,20 December2005.140According to the UK Ministry of Defence as of 15 November 2005 the following countries werecontributing to the MNF: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania,Macedonia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, UK, Ukraineand the US (http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/key.htm.).139

according to CAT, Article 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that it is notpermissible “to use any illegal means to influence the accused to secure his statement.Mistreatment, threatening to harm, inducement, threats, menace, psychologicalinfluence, and the use of narcotics, intoxicants and drugs are all considered illegalmeans.” In fact the Iraqi Penal Code criminalizes the use of torture by any publicservant. Article 333 states that “any employee or public servant who tortures, ororders the torture of an accused, witness, or expert in order to compel that person toconfess to committing a crime, to give a statement or information, to hide certainmatters, or to give a specific opinion will be punished by imprisonment or detention.The use of force or threats is considered to be torture”.In addition, Iraqi legislation provides for pre-trial detention procedures whichcontribute to the safety of detainees. For example, Article 123 of the 1971 Law onCriminal Procedure contains particularly important provisions as it requires a detaineeto be brought before an investigating judge within 24 hours.However, for many detainees held by the MNF and the Iraq authorities thereality is in stark contrast to human rights standards as guaranteed under internationaland Iraqi law. The ongoing practice of US forces and Iraqi authorities to restrictaccess to detainees and reports of torture and ill-treatment of detainees – in particularthose held by forces of the Interior Ministry - demonstrate that sufficient safeguards toprotect detainees have not been put in place. On numerous occasions AmnestyInternational has expressed its concerns about this failure and made recommendationsto stop and prevent the violations of fundamental human rights of detainees in Iraq -including in communications and meetings with representatives of the Iraqiauthorities and with representatives of governments contributing to the MNF in Iraq.Amnesty International is concerned that, as yet, insufficient safeguards havebeen put in place, in order to protect detainees from abuse. The organization isparticularly concerned that a person taken into detention by the MNF is not eligible toreceive visits by relatives or legal counsel during the first 60 days of detention. Theorganization fears that these regulations, which delay the detainees’ access to theoutside world, significantly increase the risk of detainees being tortured or ill-treated.During the initial period detainees are often held in so-called holding centres within aUS military basis. Under the current circumstances independent bodies are not in theposition to monitor the treatment of detainees at such locations. However, even afterbeing transferred to a detention centre equipped with facilities for visitors, detainees

are not allowed to receive visits until 60 days have elapsed since the date of theirdetention.141Many detainees have been held for weeks in pre-trial detention by the Iraqiauthorities without being presented to a judicial body (that is, an investigating judgeor court) – in violation of Iraqi law. Their rights to receive visits by family membersand to have access to defence counsel frequently have been denied. Many families ofdetainees have to wait anxiously for days or weeks before they learn where a person isbeing held.Denial of access by detainees to the outside world during the first weeks ofdetention has been recognized by international human rights bodies and experts to bea major factor in facilitating torture and ill-treatment of detainees. For example, in1995 the then UN Special Rapporteur on Torture emphasized that detainees shouldhave immediate access to the outside world and called for a total ban onincommunicado detention. He stated: “Torture is most frequently practiced duringincommunicado detention. Incommunicado detention should be made illegal andpersons held in incommunicado detention should be released without delay…. Legalprovisions should ensure that detainees be given access to legal counsel within 24hours”.142The Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture havealso both called for the elimination of incommunicado detention.143Amnesty International is also concerned that in many incidents of torture orill-treatment of detainees, including in cases of deaths in custody, the MNF and Iraqiauthorities have failed to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations asinternational standards require. As a consequence of insufficient investigations intoallegations of torture and ill-treatment only a limited number of perpetrators havebeen brought to justice.It appears that at least some members of the MNF who have been convicted bymilitary trials for their involvement in torture or ill-treatment of detainees may havereceived sentences that do not adequately reflect the gravity of these violations andthat these proceedings may not have established the full truth or extent of abuse. Theorganization calls on the US, UK and Iraqi authorities to allow international monitorsto conduct investigations into past and ongoing human rights violations in Iraq.See also section above:Access to the outside world.UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/434, para 926 (d).143See the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 20, para. 11, and the Committee againstTorture’s observations in UN Doc. A/52/44, referring to Georgia, para. 121 (d); UN Doc. A/53/44,referring to Spain, para.135; UN Doc. A/54/44, referring to Libya, para.182(a).142141

It appears that in many incidents where Iraqi security forces have beeninvolved in torture or ill-treatment, the Iraqi authorities have never conductedinvestigations. There have been only rare reports of perpetrators of torture or ill-treatment being brought to justice. The US Department of State refers to one case ofprosecution of police officers in Baghdad who were accused of “systematically rapingand torturing female detainees”.144Following reports of torture or ill-treatment at detention facilities in al-Jadiriyah district of Baghdad under the control of the Interior Ministry, Iraqiauthorities announced on 15 November 2005 that they had launched an investigationheaded by Deputy Prime Minister Rozh Nuri Shawes.145A report on the findings wasexpected within two weeks, but at the beginning of February 2006 no findings had yetbeen disclosed. There have been media reports, however, that some of the high-ranking officers who were believed to be involved in the human rights violations hadfled to neighbouring Iran.146On 5 February 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Ja’fari reportedly established a further committee to investigate complaints filed withthe Iraqi authorities concerning human rights violations allegedly committed by forcesof the Iraqi Interior Ministry.147This committee’s initial findings are due to beannounced in early March 2006.

Amnesty International RecommendationsTo the Iraqi authorities

Concerning torture and other ill-treatment

* Declare publicly the government’s total opposition to torture and other cruel,inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and make clear to all members of theUS Department of State,Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Iraq,28 February 2005,http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41722.htm.145Al-Jazeera,Suspected Torture Center in Iraq,16 November 2005,http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BFFFC9C0-206D-4821-9CA9-8D0B822E8F93.htm.146Al-Hayat, Basil Muhammad ‘Abd al-Wahid Ta’ama,al-Amerikun yabhathun ‘an mu’taqalat sirriyali-l-dakhiliya bi-musa’ida quwa siyasiya (The Americans Search for Secret Detention Centres with theAssistance of Political Forces),9 December 2005.147Agence France Press, Iraq abuse probe findings expected next month, 17 February 2006.Amnesty International March 2006AI Index: MDE 14/001/2006144

Iraqi Police Service, the Iraqi Armed Forces, prison guards and members of othersecurity agencies that torture and other ill-treatment will never be tolerated.* Ensure that all complaints and reports of torture and other ill-treatment and deaths incustody are promptly, impartially and effectively investigated by an independent bodyand that the methods and findings of such investigations are made public. This shouldinclude cases cited in this report, such as those of the detainees discovered being heldat various Iraqi Interior Ministry buildings in November and December 2005 andthose of the four Palestinians detained and tortured by the Wolf Brigade in May 2005.* Suspend officials suspected of committing torture and other ill-treatment fromactive duty during the investigation.* Ensure that complainants, witnesses and others at risk are protected fromintimidation and reprisals.* Bring to justice those responsible for torture and other serious human rightsviolations and try them according to international standards for fair trial and with nopossibility of the death penalty.* Ensure that statements and other evidence obtained through torture and other ill-treatment may not be invoked in any proceedings, except against a person accused oftorture.* Ensure that victims of torture and other ill-treatment and their dependants should beentitled to obtain prompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair andadequate financial compensation and appropriate medical care and rehabilitation, andestablish appropriate mechanisms and procedures to facilitate this.* Ratify, as a matter of urgency, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) andits Optional Protocol, which allows independent international and national experts toconduct regular visits to places of detention within the territory of states parties, toassess the conditions of detention and to make recommendations for improvements.

Concerning protection of detainees and prisoners

* Release or charge with recognizable criminal offences all those currently heldwithout charge.

* Ensure that persons taken into custody are brought before an investigative judgewithin twenty-four hours of arrest, in conformity with Iraqi law.* Ensure that detainees have access to legal counsel within 24 hours and are givenprompt access to their families.* Ensure that all prisoners and detainees are informed promptly of the reasons of theirdetention.* Ensure that all detainees are held only in officially recognized places of detentionand that accurate information about their arrest and whereabouts is made immediatelyavailable to relatives, lawyers and the courts.* Ensure that all detainees are immediately informed of their rights. These include theright to lodge complaints about their treatment, to have a judge rule without delay onthe lawfulness of their detention and to have a lawyer present during interrogations.* Ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards for thetreatment of prisoners. The authorities responsible for detention should be separatefrom those in charge of interrogation. There should be regular, independent,unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection to all places of detention.*Provide unhindered access to all places of detention, their installations and facilities,and detainees by relevant international organizations and bodies, including the UNSpecial Rapporteur on torture, and by Iraqi human rights organizations.

* Ensure that all complaints of torture and other ill-treatment - whether involvingmembers of the MNF, other government agencies, medical personnel, privatecontractors and interpreters - are subject to prompt, thorough, independent andimpartial civilian investigations in strict conformity with international law andstandards concerning investigations of human rights violations. Ensure that themethods and findings of such investigations are made public.* Suspend officials suspected of committing torture and other ill-treatment fromactive duty during the investigation.* Bring to trial all individuals – regardless of position or rank - against whom there isevidence of having authorized, condoned or committed torture or other ill-treatmentor other serious human rights violations. Ensure that all trials for alleged perpetratorscomply with international fair trial standards.* Ensure that victims of torture and other ill-treatment and their dependants should beentitled to obtain prompt reparation from the state including restitution, fair andadequate financial compensation and appropriate medical care and rehabilitation.* Prohibit the use of electro-shock guns against an individual who is already in thecustody or control of security or law enforcement officials, and take measures toensure that they are never made available or used during interrogations or as a meansto discipline a detainee.

Concerning protection of detainees and prisoners

* End indefinite internment of persons in Iraq.* Ensure that all detainees are informed promptly of the reasons for their detention.* Ensure that all detainees are brought promptly before a court in order that the courtcan assess the lawfulness of their detention and order the release of individuals whosedetention is found to be unlawful, in accordance with rights set out in Article 9 of theICCPR.* Ensure that all detainees are released or charged with a recognizable criminaloffence promptly and provided a fair trial in accordance with international law andwhich excludes the death penalty.

* Ensure that all detainees handed over to the Iraqi authorities are not at risk of beingsubjected to torture and ill-treatment and where there is such a risk to hold thedetainees on behalf of the Iraqi authorities, while criminal proceedings are ongoingand until such time as sufficient safeguards are put in place to prevent torture and ill-treatment.* Ensure that relatives and legal counsel have prompt access to detainees.* Ensure that accurate information about their arrest and whereabouts is madeimmediately available to detainees’ relatives and lawyers.* Ensure that all detainees are held only in officially recognized places of detentionand prohibit the holding of persons without record as “ghost detainees” and anytransfer of detainees outside Iraqi territory.* Ensure that conditions of detention conform to international standards for thetreatment of prisoners. Make provision for there to be regular, independent,unannounced and unrestricted visits of inspection to all places of detention by anindependent body with appropriate expertise in assessing detention conditions and thetreatment of prisoners.*Provide unhindered access to all places of detention, their installations and facilities,and detainees by relevant international organizations and bodies, including the UNSpecial Rapporteur on Torture, and by Iraqi human rights organizations.

Concerning torture and other ill-treatment

Concerning protection of detainees and prisoners

Concerning torture and ill-treatment

Concerning protection of detainees and prisoners