Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 2014

Work in North Africa and Middle East: Amnesty International Ireland

I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery that mobile phones should be switched off to ensure they do not interfere with the recorded transmission of the debate. They should be switched off completely for the duration of the meeting because they cause interference with broadcasting.

I welcome Mr. Colm O'Gorman, executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, and Ms Aisling Seely, campaigns officer. Members of this committee are well aware of the tremendous work carried out through the years by Amnesty International Ireland. Its work in the Middle East has increased in the past couple of years, due to the civil war in Syria and the ongoing unrest in Egypt.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

I thank the committee for the invitation to update it on the current situation in the Middle East and north Africa, with particular regard to the grave human rights concerns we have about the situation in Egypt. Amnesty International launched a new global campaign on torture yesterday. We have decided to launch the global campaign because of our analysis that, 30 years after the adoption of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is not just alive and well but is flourishing in many parts of the world. As more Governments seek to justify torture in the name of national security, the steady progress made over the past 30 years in this field is being eroded. Our presentation will focus predominantly on the human rights situation in Egypt, but we also want to raise concerns about the prevalence of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment across the Middle East and north Africa region. We have also provided the committee with hard copies and access to digital copies of a media briefing paper, "Torture in 2014: 30 years of Broken Promises", which provides an overview of our concerns about torture at the global level. It provides a regional breakdown and contains some of the information we will flag in this presentation. We would also be delighted to meet the committee on the topic of the wider global campaign.

The Middle East and north Africa has been convulsed for much of this decade. Initial optimism that human rights, including the right to be free from torture, would be better respected has largely given way to despair at the lack of broad progress or, in the case of Syria, horror at a human rights catastrophe in which torture is being committed on an industrial scale. Elsewhere, particularly in countries in which we have seen the fall of long-standing rulers, there has been frustration at the pace of change. New authorities, in some cases, have taken limited positive steps such as strengthening the legal prohibition of on torture and, in the case of Tunisia, have begun the process of transitional justice. However, the factors that facilitate such abuses have so far proved to be too deeply entrenched to translate law into practice. Reports of torture and other ill-treatment in Syria have skyrocketed since protests in March 2011 drew a brutal response from the authorities and led to an ongoing internal conflict. The practice is used routinely against those detained for their suspected involvement in opposition activities, including peaceful activists and children. There are reports that thousands have died in custody as a result. Amnesty International has also documented torture by armed opposition groups.

Torture and other ill treatment have also blighted the records of countries emerging from conflict. In Iraq, the phenomenon remains widespread in prisons and detention centres. More than 30 people are believed to have died in custody as a result of such treatment between 2010 and 2012. In Libya, the practice is rife in both state and militia-run facilities. Amnesty International has documented 23 cases of deaths under torture since the end of the 2011 conflict in Libya. A common feature across the Middle East and north Africa is the extent to which Governments have resorted to torture and other ill-treatment to clamp down on dissent and protests or to respond to perceived threats against national security. In Egypt, the current authorities are drafting new counter-terrorism legislation that would, if passed, erode existing safeguards against torture and other ill-treatment, a practice that has remained endemic.

In Iran, the authorities have relied on torture and other ill-treatment as a way to obtain confessions to secure convictions which can lead to death sentences in cases ranging from repression of peaceful dissent and drug-related offences to trials of minorities. The committee visited Iran this year and raised some of these issues. We are grateful to the committee for that.

In Jordan, 11 men arrested in October 2012 for allegedly planning violent attacks in Amman claimed to have confessed under torture. Moreover, Government opponents and civil society activists have often intentionally been caught up in operations under the guise of counter-terrorism or security operations. In Saudi Arabia, torture and other ill-treatment are frequently reported in cases of individuals suspected of security-related offences, a category that can include political opponents. There are recent allegations of torture or other ill-treatment against detainees, some of them held on security grounds, in many Middle East and north African states and other Gulf countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

In Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, abuse of detainees during arrest and interrogation remains a serious concern, particularly in the case of Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the de facto Hamas Administration in the Gaza Strip have been responsible for torturing and otherwise ill-treating detainees, particularly their respective political opponents.

Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments such as stoning, flogging and amputations remain on the statute books of a number of countries in the region, notably in the Gulf, but it is in Iran and Saudi Arabia that they are principally imposed. The entrenched patterns of torture and other ill-treatment across the region are facilitated by the fact that security forces operate largely unchecked, the judicial system relies heavily on confessions, and the judicial authorities, which generally lack independence, often fail to act when faced with reports of such treatment. Across the region, violence against women is a persistent problem. States have failed to ensure effective protection in law against such crimes committed by private individuals and tolerated them in other ways by not ensuring they are adequately investigated or prosecuted. Further detail of our analysis of the use of torture across the region, and globally, is available in the briefing document supplied to the committee via the clerk.

Egypt is the country of principal concern to the committee. Egypt is rapidly spiralling into a human rights crisis. Repressive legislation restricts the rights to freedoms of expression, association and assembly. The security forces routinely use unnecessary and excessive force to disperse protests and have detained thousands of supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi as well as activists and journalists. The Judiciary has been quick to jail Mohamed Morsi’s supporters and political activists, but has largely ignored human rights violations by the security forces. The 2014 constitution contains improved human rights guarantees, although these are insufficient to meet Egypt’s international human rights obligations. The constitution does not establish the supremacy of international law over national legislation and fails to address endemic human rights problems such as prohibiting military trials of civilians and forced evictions.

In recent weeks, two grossly unfair trials have exposed the shortcomings and selective nature of Egypt’s judicial system. In both cases, the court agreed to impose hundreds of death sentences despite a lack of due process. On 28 April, a criminal court in the Upper Egypt city of Minya sentenced 37 people to death and 491 others to life in prison. All faced charges of involvement in an attack on a police station in the village of Mattay on 14 August 2013, murdering a police officer and the attempted murder of two other police officers, as well as belonging to the banned Muslim Brotherhood movement. During the previous hearing on 24 March, the court had agreed to sentence 528 of the defendants to death and referred the case to the Grand Mufti, Egypt’s highest religious official. Under Egyptian law, criminal courts must consult with the Grand Mufti before formally handing down death sentences, though his opinion is not legally binding. The court’s reversal on 28 April of the majority of the death sentences appeared to follow widespread criticism from Egypt and outside the country. The first hearing in the trial of 528 defendants, on 22 March, lasted less than 30 minutes. Just 64 defendants were present in court out of the 118 people in detention, defence lawyers told Amnesty International. At the start of the trial, the prosecution failed to read out the charges against the defendants, a requirement under Egyptian law. The judge did not review the evidence against the men or allow the defence to cross-examine any witnesses. He also rejected the defence’s request for additional time to review over 3,000 pages of case documents. The judge then ordered armed guards to surround the defence team after some of them called for him to recuse himself from the case.

In a separate hearing on 28 April 2014, the Minya Criminal Court referred a further 683 people to the Grand Mufti, after agreeing to sentence them to death. They included Mohamed Badie, the detained General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. All faced charges of involvement in deadly violence around the police station in the village of al-Adwa in Minya governorate on 14 August 2013. No defendants were present in court, although the security forces are holding 74 of them in detention, a defence lawyer told Amnesty International. It was unclear what evidence the prosecution had produced, if any, connecting Mohamed Badie to the violence in al-Adwa. The court will formally hand down the sentences on 21 June.

Defence lawyers boycotted the only previous court hearing in this case on 25 March, after the same presiding judge referred 528 of the defendants in the Mattay village case to the Grand Mufti. Despite the absence of the defence lawyers, the judges continued the trial, questioning more than 50 witnesses and 74 defendants in only one hearing that lasted just a few hours. An Amnesty International delegate observed the court sessions on 28 April 2014, speaking to some of the defendants and their families outside the courtroom.

Those sentenced to death in their absence have the right to a re-trial. Others may appeal to Egypt's highest court of law, the Court of Cassation, which may quash the verdicts and order a re-trial. The Egyptian authorities do not release figures on death sentences and executions, despite repeated requests over the years by Amnesty International. According to our monitoring, Egyptian courts handed down at least 109 death sentences in 2013, at least 91 in 2012 and at least 123 in 2011. The last known execution was in October 2011, when the authorities hanged one man for the killing of six Coptic Christians and a Muslim police guard in a drive-by shooting in January 2010. It is fair to say that the level of death sentences handed down in recent months is sentencing on a industrial scale in a grossly unfair legal process. It just calls into very significant disrepute the notion that system can even be described as a justice system anymore.

The security forces in Egypt have continued to use excessive force, including unnecessary lethal force, to disperse protests. Since 3 July 2013 alone, 1,400 people have been killed in political violence, most after security forces forcibly dispersed protests by Mohamed Morsi's supporters. In the bloodiest incident, security forces killed at least 550 people when they used unnecessary and excessive force to disperse Morsi supporters at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square in Cairo on 14 August 2013. Hundreds more died the same day after security forces used excessive force to disperse protests by Mohamed Morsi's supporters across Egypt. The only response we are seeing from the criminal justice system to that level of deaths and that extraordinary range of human rights violations are the trial to which I referred earlier. There has been no appropriate investigation of the deaths at the hands of the security forces.

Over three years since the 25 January revolution, impunity for human rights violations remains the rule. Most human rights violations since the uprising have never been investigated and prosecuted and measures taken by the authorities to deliver truth and justice have proven toothless. The public prosecution has not effectively investigated the killings of hundreds of protesters by the security forces since 3 July. The government has ordered a judge to investigate the violence but with little guarantee that the investigation will be independent or impartial. A fact-finding committee appointed by President Mansour last year lacks the mandate to properly investigate human rights violations or to establish individual criminal responsibility for them. Furthermore, the committee does not have powers to compel government bodies to co-operate with it or to make its findings public.

Since the 2011 uprising, the authorities have suppressed the findings of the fact-finding bodies appointed to investigate human rights violations. Egypt's new constitution enshrines impunity for human rights violations by giving military courts continued jurisdiction over crimes linked to the armed forces.

The unwillingness by the Egyptian authorities to investigate human rights violations should not go unchallenged by the international community. A key indicator of progress will be whether Egypt's investigations deliver accountability for the events of 14 August 2013 and the authorities make the findings of such inquiries public.

The security forces have led a sweeping crackdown on individuals perceived to be supporters of Mohamed Morsi, arresting thousands and detaining many without respecting their due process rights. Those detained include people who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the authorities. Some detainees have complained of torture or other ill-treatment by the security forces.

As mentioned earlier, the government is also drafting counter-terrorism legislation which, if adopted, could impose further arbitrary restrictions on freedoms of expression, association and assembly and erode fair trial safeguards. In practice, the authorities are likely to use any new counter-terrorism powers to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood. The authorities designated the group as a terrorist organisation in December 2013.

In the months after 3 July 2013, the circle of repression has widened to encompass journalists and opposition and human rights activists more generally. The authorities have restricted freedom of expression. Journalists and media workers who have reported on abuses or criticised the authorities have faced harassment, arrest and trial on accusations of spreading false rumours and belonging to banned terrorist groups. The authorities have also closed down television stations known for their support of Mohamed Morsi.

The authorities have continued to suppress the work of human rights organisations. The government restricts the registration, funding and activities of civil society organisations and it is drafting legislation that would further constrain freedom of association.

The authorities have also imposed new restrictions on freedom of assembly. A new protest law gives the Interior Ministry sweeping powers over demonstrations. The security forces have used the law to forcibly disperse protests staged by Mohamed Morsi's supporters, as well as other opposition and human rights movements, and to arrest and detain protesters.

I will move on to discrimination against women and Coptic Christians, which we want to flag. Women and Coptic Christians have faced a rising tide of violence and discrimination amid the political turmoil. Women protesters continue to face the threat of sexual violence, with more than a hundred such attacks around Tahrir Square reported in the week of 30 June 2013 alone. Despite the level of violence, and the fact that attacks regularly take place during protests, the authorities have taken little action to stop or investigate them or to bring those responsible to justice. Coptic Christians faced an unprecedented level of violence after the Rabaa al-Adawiya dispersal. Sectarian attacks left four dead and 200 Christian properties and 43 churches damaged. The Egyptian authorities said the attacks were terrorism, yet failed to ensure adequate, impartial and independent investigations, including into the security forces' failure to prevent and stop the violence.

Both supporters and opponents of Mohamed Morsi committed human rights abuses in the protests around the former President's ousting in July. In most cases documented by Amnesty International, security forces failed to police protests adequately to defuse the situation or to protect the right to life. Amnesty International is also concerned at ongoing political violence, including attacks by armed groups. The organisation condemns indiscriminate attacks, as well as attacks targeting civilians. However, the authorities are using the deteriorating security situation as a pretext to repress all forms of perceived opposition, including those who use lawful and peaceful means of protest. The Egyptian Government has the right and duty to protect lives and prosecute those responsible for crimes, but it must not sacrifice human rights in the name of countering terrorism.

The security situation has deteriorated in the months following Morsi's ousting, with army checkpoints, security personnel and government buildings all coming under increased attack by various armed groups. Attacks against the security forces have left more than 100 security personnel dead since 3 July 2013, according to figures from the Interior Ministry, military spokespeople and Egyptian media. While the violence has mostly affected North Sinai, it has increasingly spread to other regions. Violence targeting the security forces in the wake of Rabaa al-Adawiya left 64 police officials dead, according to a recent report by the National Council for Human Rights.

That is a very broad overview of our concerns in the region in respect of torture and cruel and inhuman treatment. There are very specific concerns in regard to the human rights situation in Egypt. We also supplied some detail on a number of cases of prisoners of conscience and individuals at risk as well as some further detail on some of the human rights violations I mentioned earlier in a separate document. We are very happy to talk about individual cases and any action the committee might be able to take but at some point, I would like to flag the case of Ibrahim Halawi with which I am sure the committee will be very familiar, where an Irish citizen is being detained in Egypt.

Before I call Deputies Brendan Smith, Maureen O'Sullivan and Eric Byrne and Senator Michael Mullins, I would like to say we will try to finish at a reasonable time because we have other pressing engagements. That is not to diminish, in any way, the importance of the subject matter under discussion.

We will decide on the means by which we will deal with the issues arising after a discussion. We have to follow up on them and it is appropriate that we liaise with the ambassadors or chargés d'affaires, as the case may be.

I join the Chairman in welcoming Mr. Colm O'Gorman and his colleague, Ms Aisling Seely. He made a very detailed presentation. Mr. O'Gorman brings great clarity to an unbelievable catalogue of a frightening disregard of human rights. What he outlined was torture on a massive scale, particularly in one country.

In regard to the UN Convention against Torture, what method is in place to monitor its implementation in each country that has signed up to the convention? It is obviously not adequate. Are there annual or biennial visits by UN personnel to review the working, or lack of it, of the convention?

Mr. O'Gorman made very little reference to the international community. I think there is a message in that to the international community that it is not playing the part it needs to play. For ourselves, we belong to the European Union. Have High Representative Commissioner Ashton and the External Action Service been to the fore in highlighting these dreadful situations confronting so many people?

In the course of his presentation, Mr. O'Gorman mentions twice or three times the violence against women. I think one of the major themes running through every presentation in which we deal with human rights issues is the prevalence of a totally unacceptable level of violence against women. We had the appalling abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria.

From his contacts is Mr. O'Gorman aware of any progress towards the UN achieving a resolution in regard to Syria? We know that has been blocked. Syria is not getting the coverage it deserves due to other international disasters. There was some commentary recently that the Halawa family were not happy with the support they were getting. I hope and trust the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is being as active and supportive as possible to that family. Are there any indications that Mr. Halawa will get an early release?

Again I thank Mr. O'Gorman for his very detailed presentation.

I thank Amnesty International for the presentation. I read the report, Torture in 2014: 30 years of Broken Promises. It makes sickening reading. I am always cautious of the focus of attention on individual named victims. As one goes through this document one may read of a peasant in Sudan who has had a hand amputated or look at the regional snapshots. Where does one start? There is Angola, Chad, Gabon, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Mali, and the list goes on and on. All I can do is congratulate the work of Amnesty. Who are the unfortunates in Somalia, where al-Shabab have carried out stonings and mutilations? This is a terrible read. It behoves the international organisations, the UN and all the main players in the field of human rights, including the European Union and the High Representative of the Commission, to address the issues. Quite frankly, it is difficult to comprehend that things can swing as badly as they have in Egypt, from democratic elections that elect a democrat and everybody applauds the process of democracy and the participation in elections to what has been in effect an overnight 180 degrees somersault that has created the most horrendous human rights abuses, such as mass sentencing. It is tragic for the victims and those living in these regions where this is part of the unwritten culture of the police and security forces and government.

We need to be focused and reminded every so often about these abuses. I often feel that the cases we highlight are those of people more capable of expressing views, be they be political or personal, or of explaining their torture as against the humble peasant who is the victim of such abuses.

I welcome Mr. O'Gorman and Ms Seely. I thank them for giving us one hell of a jolt and for reminding us of man's inhumanity to man. I have not had the opportunity to read the report, Torture in 2014: 30 Years of Broken Promises. The opening words from the Secretary General of electric shocks, beatings, rape, humiliation, mock executions, burning, sleep deprivation and long hours in contorted positions paints a frightening picture of what is happening in many parts of the world.

The picture of what is happening in Egypt is particularly horrific with the very significant numbers of people who have been sentenced to death. In the course of the presentation, it was stated that since 2011, only one execution has been carried out. Can we take comfort from the fact that this is the case and, while death sentences have been passed, they may be reversed and may not be carried through?

I am conscious of the wonderful work done by Amnesty in highlighting human rights abuses throughout the world over a long period. What impact do the significant Amnesty reports have with the international community?

Like Deputy Smith, I also wonder if enough is being done at EU level to address the very serious problems in the countries that were mentioned in the report. What would Amnesty like this committee to do as a matter or urgency? What can we do in practical terms? It is wonderful that we have had the submission from Amnesty but given the enormity of the problem that warrants action, what can we do and what concrete steps can we take?

Before we call on Mr. O'Gorman to reply, I think it goes without saying that he has outlined an horrific list of cases which, by virtue of their individuality, strike a chord with people more than statistics can. I compliment him on his comprehensive presentation.

The other fact that strikes people is the number of locations where people sink to the depths of depravity to take revenge on their fellow human beings, neighbours and community.

They are spread across the world and include Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The list is legion and the position is appalling.

A number of members asked what the international community can do. While the joint committee may not be able to do much, we should try to engage with the ambassadors or chargés d'affaires of the relevant countries, with a view to highlighting the atrocities and challenging them. If no one intervenes or tells people that this is not the way things are done, they will obviously get the impression that the lust for war and blood will be allowed to continue unabated. We need to do something.

The joint committee should also liaise with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade with a view to using our influence internationally, through the European Union and United Nations, to focus on the issues Amnesty International has brought to our attention. While we were aware of these matters, when they are presented in the manner in which Mr. O'Gorman has done, the impact is much greater. It gives us a worldwide picture, as it were, of where the most serious atrocities are taking place.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

On the question concerning the United Nations Convention Against Torture, in recent years Amnesty International has come to recognise the increasing need to mobilise again on torture on a global level. This was not a terribly encouraging realisation. Amnesty International first launched a major global campaign on torture in 1972. Looking back over some of our archives, I found that Seán MacBride launched the global campaign in 1972. This work made a significant contribution to the adoption in 1984 of the convention against torture, which is a United Nations treaty. From memory, I understand 155 states have thus far signed and ratified the convention, while approximately 40 UN member states have not done so. It has, therefore, been widely adopted, and the absolute prohibition against torture is binding on all states under international law, irrespective of whether they have signed the convention.

It is a sobering fact that we decided it was necessary to raise the level of the work Amnesty International has been doing on torture since it was founded to a global priority campaign, which means that every single Amnesty International entity will work on the issue in the coming years. In the past five years, we have reported on 141 states which have ratified the treaty, and in 76 of these - that is, more than half of them - we reported incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is at the global level. We have presented an overview of the Middle East and North Africa region in the context of torture. Torture is, however, a global problem which is prevalent worldwide.

There is no doubt that the justification of torture that occurred after the September 2001 and the arguments about the so-called war on terror have substantially eroded respect for the safeguards that exist. As part of the preparations for our campaign, we surveyed public attitudes towards torture in 21 countries spread across the globe. It was striking that the study found that 82% of people globally wanted stronger mechanisms to protect them from torture and 44% of respondents would fear torture or ill treatment if they were detained or held in custody. However, the survey also found that 36% of the same cohort believed torture could be justified in certain circumstances. The practice at the level of states or their security forces is underpinned by an erosion of public rejection of torture as a principle. This has its basis in the promotion of a culture of fear in which permission is sought to inflict torture on other people.

To respond directly to Deputy Brendan Smith's question on mechanisms, the UN Committee against Torture reviews compliance with the convention against torture in the same was as any of the other treaty body reporting mechanisms do. However, the UN Human Rights Committee and Human Rights Council also consider issues related to torture. It is the Committee against Torture which carries out periodic reviews of compliance among state parties. Another mechanism that is available is the optional protocol to the convention against torture, which allows for a greater level of engagement. If individual complaints have not been addressed at state level, the protocol allows them to be raised with the committee for investigation. While Ireland has not signed the optional protocol, which we strongly urge it to do, it has put in place many of the preventative mechanisms required under the convention. The optional protocol allows for a greater system of inspection and independent complaints where they arise.

A French resolution on Syria is before the Security Council, which is a welcome development. It includes a specific request that the situation in Syria be referred to the International Criminal Court. Amnesty International has been calling consistently for this action since the beginning of conflict in Syria and the emergence of evidence of widespread human rights violations being committed by parties to the conflict. Members will be aware that the Government has also consistently called for this step to be taken. For this reason, I am confident that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be supportive of the resolution at international level. We have not engaged with the Minister directly on the issue because it is only now being tabled. Resolutions of this nature are of crucial importance if we are try to bring the conflict to an end.

Another problem that needs urgent address is the plight of refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. This is where there is a direct European Union component. Another area of particular concern to Amnesty International is the way in which Europe responds to those who are seeking protection. Members will have seen reports as late as yesterday of a boat carrying hundreds of migrants - one report put the number at 400 - that sunk south of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean. Reports over the weekend indicate that 37 migrants died in a shipwreck just off the coast of Libya. These are people fleeing the conflicts in the region to seek protection in Europe. Flight by sea is not the only major issue. The Italian Government undertook an important initiative in recent years when it commenced a search and rescue operation by its naval forces. While this is a major step forward, there is also a phenomenon known as "push-back". Greece is committing appalling human rights violations against people seeking protection by literally pushing people back across its borders to prevent them from accessing protection or safety in Europe. Amnesty International produced a report on this practice in recent weeks. I will provide an example, because the issue relates directly to Syria. I recall reading the details of a case involving a group of Syrian refugees who crossed the border from Turkey into Greece. They were apprehended by the Greek authorities and handed over to men wearing dark or black uniforms with no insignia on them. Their money, possessions and passports were taken and they were transported in small plastic boats across a river and dumped in Turkey. Other reports we have documented include one involving a boat of Syrian refugees that was fired on with live rounds by the Greek coast guard as it approached the coast. People were injured in this incident. Another boat of refugees was pulled back out into international waters after being disabled by the Greek coast guard. Dozens of people subsequently died when it sank.

There are major concerns about the way in which Europe is responding to people fleeing the atrocities and human rights violations being documented by Amnesty International. Europe is failing to respond to this need. To put the issue in context, I recall a startling statistic from the report on the practice of "push-back" in Greece. Europe provided approximately €227 million to Greece to secure its borders but less than €20 million to assist people seeking to access protection. Greece is a country on Europe's borders and these figures tell us something about Europe's priorities. While €220 million was provided to keep out people who need protection and prevent them from entering "Fortress Europe", only €20 million was provided to respond to people who desperately need protection and support. Incidentally, states such as Greece and the wider European Union have clear international obligations on protection under international law.

On the wider question of gender-based violence, over many months and years I am sure this committee has heard about and has a full appreciation of the gender component to human rights violations and concerns. Deputy Smith flagged it well in the context of what we have seen in Nigeria. We live in a world where it is possible for an individual who sees himself as a leader to describe how he will commodify and sell girls of the age of nine or 12 into marriage or sexual slavery, and feel entirely justified in doing that. All of us might see that as extreme, which we should, but it demonstrates an attitude, pervasive across the world, that commodifies and devalues women and girls. The objection to the notion that women and girls have the same rights as other people, including the right to education, is the basis of many such violations, and this is something we must continue to deal with.

A question was asked about the impact of reports. These reports have little impact if all they do is sit on shelves. It is dependent upon people paying attention to what they say, including members of committees such as this one, and our members and others taking action on information we have been able to gather and put in the public domain and the political arena. Reports, statistics, information and compelling stories are meaningless unless people are provoked into taking this kind of injustice personally and doing something about it. This committee has a fine record of doing that, and we hope it will continue to do so.

We know we have an impact. We know it in individual cases. The existence of the UN Convention against Torture is an example of what can be achieved if a sufficient number of people stand up and demand change, whether it is at a local, national or international level. The arms trade treaty agreed last year is another example of the power of individual activism and the work of organisations such as Amnesty International that can work in co-operation with like-minded states that want to act with integrity. In the international arena, Ireland is one of those.

I have tried to deal with the question on the European Union. The specific question I referred to about the notion of "Fortress Europe" is being addressed. I recognise that is not fully a matter for this committee, but members might encourage colleagues in the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs to consider it. It is a grave and significant issue.

I am sure members are wondering what we are asking them to do. I want to flag the specific case of Ibrahim Halawa. As members are aware, Ibrahim has been in prison since August 2014 without referral of his case to court for trial. He was 17, a minor, upon his arrest. He was arrested from the al-Fath mosque on 17 August. We understand he is accused of violence that took place on 16 and 17 August in Ramses Square. Approximately 16,000 people have been arrested, but he is among thousands held in prisons on very broad and vague accusations including attacking security forces and hindering the work of public institutions. Those same accusations are faced by many thousands of people although the Egyptian authorities have not established individual criminal responsibility in these cases. His family, with whom he was in contact, are obviously gravely concerned as they see the level and scale of death sentences and life imprisonment that have been handed down in recent weeks.

Senator Michael Mullins asked if we take any reassurance from the fact that only one execution has been carried out. Frankly, no. Given the number of death sentences that have been handed down and the unprecedented downward spiral witnessed in Egypt in recent months, the answer is "No". It is very difficult to try to apply any kind of logic or reason from a justice perspective to how the Egyptian criminal justice system is functioning at present. One lawyer who is an Amnesty supporter and member said recently that it is almost an insult to even call these trials or to call these people judges. This meets no measure of widely understood fair trial processes. I think he makes a reasonable point. Our specific calls in relation to Ibrahim Halawa are that he should have access to a fair trial, including independent, fair and impartial investigations, and be released if nothing is proved against him. Our primary call at this point is that the Egyptian authorities should urgently either refer his case to trial or release him. We urge the committee - this is a call that is shared by his family, with whom we have been in contact - to make that call directly upon the Egyptian Government via the Egyptian embassy, and to impress upon them the urgency of this particular case.

As I was in the Chair in the House, I apologise to Mr. O'Gorman that I did not hear his initial submission. Certainly, since the tragedy at Lampedusa, there has been a clear directive that it is the responsibility of any European country to pick people out of the water, not shoot them. One of the results of that directive has been that the people who transport asylum seekers from African countries, for example, are dumping them into the water if they see land because they know they have to be picked up. That is such a dangerous practice. Mr. O'Gorman mentioned the "push-back" from Greece. I have some sympathy for countries such as Greece and Malta that are in the path of waves of asylum seekers escaping torture, war and so on. In Greece, the church has to feed a quarter of a million people every day in Athens alone. It cannot afford to feed its own. If we make rules in Europe whereby people must be processed in the country in which they land, then we have to ensure we can afford to look after such people properly. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the rest of Europe either to abandon that rule and take them to be processed in other countries, or to pay Greece to do it. To sit in judgment on a country that is already starving is very difficult. It is all right to condemn them, but they are in a difficult situation.

I read Mr. O'Gorman's report and noted that Nigeria was not mentioned, but my colleague Deputy Brendan Smith mentioned it. I read in a newspaper article that Amnesty International said there had been a warning of the Boko Haram attack. We raised the issue at the meeting last week. The lack of any kind of action or interest from the rest of the world is pervasive. If one good thing comes out of that attack it will be to highlight the fact that so many people think it is all right that girls should not go to school. That is a point of view that is quite prevalent in many parts of the world and it is something that has to be fought at every turn.

I agree with the Chairman that this is only a small committee, and maybe Ireland does not have a big impact. However, we cannot be silent. When I raised this issue yesterday the Chairman asked for the Nigerian ambassador to appear before the committee because we want to make it absolutely clear to him that we are very unhappy at Nigeria's lack of action. I do not know if he has responded. I appreciate that there has been a little more activity since on a world scale, but we have to use whatever powers we have here and also our powers through the European Union, the Council of Europe and the UN. We cannot be silent when such incidents take place, or assume that somebody will do something. Their own government knew about it in advance and did nothing to prevent it, and then did nothing to save the girls subsequently. I feel I am lecturing somebody.

I presume the reference to August 2014 is a typographical error and that August 2013 is the intended reference.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

Excuse me. It is.

We identify the horrors we have been reading about in many Arab, north African and sub-Saharan African countries with extreme terrorism and religious intolerance by Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Christians.

We are speaking from the point of view of the West, including Ireland and our greatest neighbour in Europe and closest trading ally, Britain, as well as America. Will the delegation tell me how this view goes down in Third World countries when they read about or hear people in the West decrying their cultural attitudes to homosexuals and people of different tribes and religions? What is their reaction when they hear the sickening debate on what constitutes torture when it is engaged in by the United States of America? Everybody knows about the degree to which one can waterboard a prisoner and how close one can bring a person to death before it constitutes torture. We know that the policy in the West has been to engage a lot in what we call rendition to bring people to countries such as Jordan and Egypt. The reason they are brought to such locations is the use of torture is prevalent and prisoners can be subjected to it. Apparently, there are secret prisons around the world. They are so secret we do not quite know where they are. There have been reports on Guantanamo Bay and pictures of men in orange suits being detained, yet the West talks to the rest of the world about how terrible countries are to engage in torture. Does the delegation think such imagery has damaged how the West is viewed and are such countries saying we are hypocrites?

With the agreement of the committee, I propose that we circulate to the authorities of the various countries mentioned-----

I am sorry, the relevant countries have been mentioned. I saw a list that included nearly all of the countries in north Africa.

I know and I am conscious of the list. We will circulate a communication to them, to which they can respond. We will invite them to make a presentation to the committee. We will also refer them to the office of the Tánaiste in respect of dealings at EU and UN level, as appropriate. If we do nothing and regurgitate what has been said in the debate in six months or one year, we will not make an impact. We need to do what it is within our scope and capacity to do, which means that we must use diplomatic channels and ask the people concerned to indicate the extent to which they are prepared to address these issues.

I suggest we also give priority to the case of the Irish citizen, Ebraheem Halawa, and seek some movement on it. I assume that he wishes to return to Ireland, if and when he is released.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

As the committee may be aware, Ibrahim Halawa was arrested with three of his sisters who were all detained at the same time. He is an Irish citizen who has lived here and I am sure he will be very eager to come back. He was 17 years old when he was arrested and has been held ever since. He is now 18.

I agree that we need to have concern, sympathy and perhaps empathy for the Greek Government in the situation in which it has found itself. I also agree that there is a need for the European Union to look at a burden sharing approach to the issue of protection. I flagged the question of it giving Greece €227 million to secure its borders versus the €20 million given to respond to the needs of those seeking protection as an example of its priorities, not those of Greece. Let us remember that is European funding.

Previously, there was an Amnesty briefing on detention centres in Libya. As members of the committee may be aware, there is great concern about Europe externalising its responsibilities and also outsourcing its responsibilities to provide protection. EU-funded or part-funded detention centres for migrants in Libya, where we have documented significant acts of torture and ill-treatment, is another issue of significant concern for us.

We agree that there must be a European response. That is why we launched a campaign, SOS Europe, which focuses specifically on the question of "Fortress Europe." Equally, we will continue to condemn the human rights violations committed by Greece, for which there is no excuse. Greece has consistently denied the pushbacks, despite all the evidence to the contrary. We hope to see the European Union taking significant action against Greece on foot of these violations.

With regard to Boko Haram, towards the end of last week we produced clear evidence that the Nigerian authorities had had a minimum of four hours notice of the attack on Chibok and also that they would have been made aware of, at different levels, the fact that the school was a building of interest to those who were going to attack Chibok, yet they failed to act. I remember reading that when the Boko Haram fighters reached Chibok, they encountered 17 army personnel who left after a short battle, despite the fact that the knowledge outlined had been available. We have confirmed and verified, through a number of sources, the names and identities of senior officials to whom these concerns were passed, both at state or federaland at military level. Obviously, we must be careful about revealing the source of this information for safety reasons, but they include senior military personnel. We are very clear that the Nigerian authorities had significant and advance warning of the attack on Chibok, yet they did nothing to prevent it from happening.

We understand the point made that this is a small committee and the question of what Ireland can do in terms of providing support. It should continue to do everything it can at the Council of Europe, in the European Union and at the United Nations but also in its ongoing bilateral engagements with other states. It is in its bilateral discussions and engagements on human rights issues that Ireland has traditionally been able to exert influence through considered, appropriate, sensitive and sensible diplomacy. Ireland recognises that real change happens through the establishment of relationships, not necessarily by banging on tables and shouting at people. We believe every opportunity, including bilateral discussions, should be used to advance respect for human rights.

In the context of the question on the developing world, Deputy Eric Byrne is right. We have talked about torture, but we gave it a regional focus because of the purpose of this hearing. However, the Deputy was right to flag the fact that public acceptance of torture, or the view that it is justified, undoubtedly, has its origins in the degrading of international protections and the increasing justification of torture by countries that previously would have championed campaigns against it. It is particularly revealing - we have talked about this repeatedly - that in 1948 the US prosecuted a Japanese soldier for waterboarding. However, in the past decade it has spent a lot of time justifying and suggesting waterboarding does not constitute torture and is not illegal in the first instance. When the great defenders of human rights become the great violators, that gives licence and, frankly, even greater impunity to those who might be minded to engage in it.

The Deputy referred to the "black sites" of secret prisons. We knew where they were. There were at least six in Europe, including in Lithuania, Poland and Romania. Credible information from the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, journalists and NGOs indicates - this matter is mentioned on page 37 of our document - that there were secret CIA detention sites in Lithuania, Poland and Romania between 2002 and 2006. Only Romania has held an investigation in the form of a secret parliamentary inquiry that lasted a few hours and the conclusion was kept secret, except for one short public announcement that the country was not involved in any way in rendition and secret detention programmes.

Of course, it is important to point out that there has never been an investigation conducted by the Government or the State into the role it played in the rendition programme. There is no doubt, however, that Ireland facilitated the programme. It is very clear from the evidence revealed in research we carried out for many years that on a number of occasions flights on rendition circuits landed and refuelled at Shannon Airport. Members may be aware of evidence from Wikileaks cables from the US Embassy in Dublin that a previous Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade was aware of the situation.

Dermot Ahern in those cables made it clear that he believed that it happened on a number of occasions. There is a need for an investigation in Ireland and that not has been delivered. It has not been delivered by this Government, despite promises that it would happen when the Government parties were in opposition. That absolutely needs to happen and it needs to be seen as part of the wider global situation. If we do not stand for the rule of law, how can we demand that others do? As a state in this part of the world, we have to account for ourselves and then demand that others are equally accountable.

I have one suggestion as how to some of this can be advanced. We would be enormously grateful if the committee advanced Ibrahim Halawa's case specifically with the Egyptian authorities and the other cases we have highlighted by making specific calls on them. If the ambassador is invited before the committee, that would be valuable.

With regard to the broader issue of torture, we might agree with the committee a means through which we can share information with it regarding specific countries in order that we could assist it in getting an overview of what are the concerns in those countries, including individual cases. We will have a focus over the next number of years on five countries - Nigeria, Mexico, the Philippines, Morocco and Uzbekistan - where we have identified that is it possible to achieve breakthroughs that would have a significant impact both within those countries and at regional level. We would be happy to come back to talk to the committee about each of them, give examples of cases within those countries and perhaps look at ways in which the committee could engage with their embassies in that regard.

I propose to draw up a list to prioritise the issues and the locations. We have asked through parliamentary questions that there be an identification of the most pressing cases globally. Most of them fall within the report to which Mr. O'Gorman referred. We will circulate that to the relevant embassies and ask whether they might be prepared to make a response before the committee. In some cases, that may not be possible. One ambassador is ill currently but perhaps the chargé d'affaires might decide to come along. Similarly, we will circulate the Department of Foreign Affairs with a view to ensuring the issues raised will be highlighted during discussions at EU and UN level.

As members said, one atrocity can fuel the fires to such an extent that the response is equally bad or even worse with the narrative continuing. Once that happens, people become conditioned and there can be no end to it. We have all met in our constituency clinics the victims of various forms of torture who have come from some of these countries, particularly those who have been subject to electric shock treatment. That is particularly barbaric.

Mr. O'Gorman made his case well and we thank him for that. We will follow up as best we can through the channels available to us.

Mr. Colm O'Gorman

I thank the Vice Chairman very much.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.45 p.m. and adjourned at 3.55 p.m until Tuesday, 28 May 2014.
Barr
Roinn