These references imply that assurances from a foreign government, in themselves, can give rise to a
reasonable belief that there is no longer a risk of mistreatment where, without the assurances,
reason to believe such a risk existed. Based on decades of research and experience about torture
and other ill-treatment, Amnesty International considers that promises of humane treatment given
by governments that practice torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment simply are not
reliable and do not provide an effective safeguard against such abuse.
16. The dynamics that arise in cases of torture and ill-treatment in those states where such practises
are systemic or widespread, either in general or against particular categories of detainee, lead to
inherent deficiencies in assurances that prevent them from reliably mitigating the risk of torture and
ill-treatment. Given the absolute prohibition of torture under international law, its status as a crime
under international law and the stigma associated with its use, states that engage in torture and
other intentional abuse of detainees routinely deny and conceal its use. Further, in most or all of the
circumstances where the Guidance contemplates reliance on assurances, it is difficult to see how
the UK would be in a position to verify whether assurances have in fact been fulfilled after the fact,
let alone to predict whether they will be respected in advance or paint a true portrait of what is
happening at any moment. These difficulties are due in part to: first, the inherent challenges in
detecting, documenting and confirming, during ongoing detention, sophisticated torture techniques
designed to avoid physical symptoms; and, second, even in the limited circumstances where UK
agents or others may in fact be in a position to interview a detainee directly about his treatment,
under-reporting arising from the fear of risk of reprisals faced by a person who presumably remains
held by those subjecting him/her to torture or other ill-treatment. Additionally, such assurances are
not legally binding and lack effective enforcement mechanisms. Where a detainee whose proper
treatment is presumed by the UK to be secured by assurances is nevertheless subjected to torture
or other abuse, assurances simply do not provide the detainee with access to any legal remedy
capable of compelling an end to the abuse. In such cases it is essentially left to the governments
involved voluntarily to assume responsibility for investigating the breach and holding the
perpetrators to account. The UK’s lack of enforceable rights of access to and control over foreign
places of detention or prisoners would be a significant if not insurmountable obstacle. It is unlikely
that either government will have an incentive to do so in a meaningful fashion, since verifying and
acknowledging that the abuse has occurred means an admission by both countries that they are
responsible for violations of the international prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.
17. In contexts where there is sufficient reason to believe that there is a real risk of torture or illtreatment to a detainee, assurances cannot reliably or verifiably mitigate that risk in a manner that
would justify proceeding with intelligence actions that otherwise could not proceed. The fact that
the Guidance relies so heavily on assurances in so many areas seriously weakens its potential to
ensure UK agents’ actions are consistent with the UK’s international human rights obligations.
18. In a response to Amnesty International, the then National Security Adviser stated that any such
assurances (and caveats) are “rigorously assessed”, and that intelligence officers and service
personnel receive comprehensive training in order to carry out such assessments, but did not
engage further with our substantive concern about the inherent unreliability of assurances.
19. Amnesty International continues to believe that such heavy reliance on assurances throughout the
Guidance seriously weakens its potential to ensure that the actions of intelligence agents and
security personnel are consistent with the UK’s international human rights obligations.
EUR 45/012/2014
4
31 October 2014