Written evidence from Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) (HMR0026)

 

  1. The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales (BHRC) was founded by former Bar Chairman Anthony Scrivener QC. It was established in 1992 to fill the vacuum caused by the lack of a Bar organisation dedicated to human rights. It was approved in its infancy by Anthony Scrivener QC’s successor, Gareth Williams QC (the late Lord Williams of Mostyn). It sits alongside other committees with the Bar’s name that are independent of the Bar Council. Since its foundation, BHRC has expanded substantially. Its remit remains international and extends to all countries of the world

 

  1. BHRC was founded by the Bar Council but is distinct from the Bar Council. It has its own constitution and elections but reports to the Bar Council, whom it depends upon for funding for its one member of staff and trial observation unit.

 

  1. BHRC consists of barristers called to the Bar of England and Wales, pupil barristers, law students and legal academics. Its members include some of the UK’s foremost human rights barristers and legal practitioners. Our members offer their work pro bono alongside their independent legal practices, teaching commitments and legal studies. It is a member of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Board and is a member of Role UK. It sits on the Board of Alliance For Lawyers At Risk.

 

  1. BHRC provides training, resources and guidance to support the development of human rights protections and rights in countries where legal systems are lacking or failing; it raises awareness of human rights abuses through trial observations and fact-finding missions; it intervenes in human rights cases by submitting amicus curia briefs in international courts and sending letters of concern to government officials in various jurisdictions. Its vision is for a world in which human rights are universally protected through every government and state actor’s adherence to international law obligations and internationally agreed norms.

 

  1. Over the last two years alone, it has addressed human rights abuses in over 30 countries. As examples, BHRC sent trial observers to more than 20 different hearings in 9 cases in Cameroon, Egypt, Kuwait, Palestine and Turkey with some defendants in Egypt and Cameroon being released without conviction after the observations were published. BHRC was the only legal organization with observers at the dismantling of The Jungle in Calais, where the barristers focused upon child rights. BHRC has carried out extensive training of the Nigerian Bar Association(NBA) in protections, rights and remedies for internally displaced persons in Nigeria and for child rights to UNICEF’s Child Protection Networks and the National Judicial Institute.

 

  1. Projects have received funds from UNICEF, the FCO, Charitable Trusts and has worked in partnership with charities such as Article 19 and Euro-Med Rights.

 

  1. BHRC works in every jurisdiction except its own – with specific exceptions where its expertise has been used in interventions:

 

    1. In extradition cases involving Turkey being adjudicated upon in England and Wales;
    2. FGM Protection Orders – BHRC proposed FGMPOs to Home Affairs Committee and then assisted in drafting the provisions. BHRC’s work was referred to in Hansard by Baroness Smith.

 

  1. In recent years, BHRC’s human rights projects and missions have answered requests for assistance from countries which include: Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Honduras, India, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Chechnya, Turkey, Iran, Armenia, Belarus, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica, South Africa, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Morocco, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, The Maldives, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Nepal, Rwanda, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, USA and Sudan.

 

  1. BHRC’s work is wide reaching and ranges from long-term projects supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the UN to instant responses to arbitrary detentions and disappearances.

 

Issues

 

  1. This submission seeks to address the following issues:

 

    1. The FCO’s work in protecting work in protecting and promoting human rights in the United Nations, including:
      1. Its role on the Human Rights Council;
      2. Its promotion of human rights in the Security Council;
      3. Its work to secure British experts in UN positions (for example as Special Rapporteurs and on treaty monitoring bodies);
    2. The FCO’s promotion of democratic values and the rule of law;
    3. The FCO’s uses of external advice in forming policy, and its engagement with civil society organisations in the UK and elsewhere;
    4. Changes to the FCO’s human rights annual report and its human rights priorities.

 

Executive Summary

 

  1. BHRC considers that the FCO plays an important and influential role within the protection and promotion of human rights at UN level and more broadly on the global stage.  BHRC is however concerned that the perception at the very least is that human rights is becoming less of a priority and that this is reflected within the revised priorities/themes and the reporting by the FCO.

 

  1. It will be noted that BHRC conducts high level work in many of the geographic areas and issues within the remit of the FCO. 

 

  1. BHRC is concerned that knowledge and expertise is not harnessed effectively in partnership and that as a consequence there are missed opportunities. This in turn impacts upon the sustainability and long-term impact of the work of both the FCO and BHRC. 

 

  1. In the main, BHRC has found its relationships with embassies and representatives overseas to be productive and a source of support. Resource limitations have however hampered effective partnerships and policy development.  The processes and procedures are often ad hoc and can be difficult to navigate effectively. Currently, BHRC’s relationship with the FCO in the UK is inadequate owing in part the high turnover of desk officers and poor handover. There is a loss of expertise as highly experienced individuals are re-deployed to areas often outside of the human rights field.

 

  1. There remain particular difficulties with access to the UN and political support for BHRC and its expert members.  For example, the UK is not as actively involved as other member states in lobbying with regard to key appointments.

 

  1. BHRC has seen success through the DFID funded ROLE UK partnership which provides for support in the UK and at the diplomatic mission overseas in the relevant country. BHRC is a consortium member and is represented at Board level. This has been an effective programme in harnessing support, identifying the real issues on the ground and building networks with local partners with resulting impact and real change in the area of human rights and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law.  For example, work in Nigeria has resulted in a memorandum of understanding between the Nigerian Bar Association and BHRC along with long term programme planning in key areas including child rights, displaced populations and land and economic rights.

 

 

Protection and Promotion of Human Rights in the United Nations

 

Special Rapporteur Appointments/treaty monitoring bodies

 

  1. BHRC notes the evidence of Natalie Samarasinghe, Executive Director, the United Nations Association UK (UNA-UK) (6 March 2018 at question 25) on the lack of pipeline support and lobbying in comparison to other member states of the UN.

 

  1. In 2017, there were 15 British candidates for special rapporteur positions however none succeeded.  These included two Officer holders of BHRC. The Chair, Kirsty Brimelow QC was successful in being short listed for interview for the position of Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity. Kirsty successfully passed the interview with Ambassadors of four States to be one of the three recommended to the UN Human Rights Council. However, as selection at this point is a non-transparent political process, she had no access to information as to any requirement for her to lobby and how this procedure could be accessed. She belatedly attempted to contact the UK ambassador to the UN but with no success. BHRC remains unaware of how to obtain assistance or what assistance can be given regarding applications to UN monitoring bodies

 

Human Rights Council Side Events

 

  1. On 21 September 2017, the Chair of the BHRC, Kirsty Brimelow QC, moderated the first UN workshop on Witchcraft and Human Rights (side event UNHRC). The event was organised by Ikponwonso Eko, the UN Independent Expert on People with Albinism, and Gary Foxcroft, director of the Witchcraft and Human rights Network. It was the first of its kind at the international level, bringing together UN experts, academics and members of civil society to discuss witchcraft related violence and human rights. It is unclear whether there was any support from the FCO, however there was no contact from a UK representative during the two-day workshop.

 

BHRC and UN Observer Status

 

  1. BHRC applied 3 years previously for observer status. The consideration remains ongoing. There is no apparent means of obtaining assistance from the FCO. 

 

The Promotion of Human Rights in the Security Council

 

  1. The UK played a leading role in securing UN Security Resolution 2379 in September 2017.  This established an investigative team to collect evidence of ISIS atrocities committed in Iraq. Whilst there is some criticism of the limitations of the Resolution (see e.g. the Human Rights Watch commentary on its focus being exclusively on ISIS) and upon its drafting, it is an opportunity for an effective UNSC backed investigative team to be used as a model for collecting evidence where there are other atrocity crimes such as in Myanmar.

 

  1. The UK embassy in Baghdad has actively engaged with BHRC, including in regard to events hosted in the UK.  Most recently, the Chair of BHRC attended the “Road from Mosul” launch in London on 23rd May 2018.

 

The FCO’s promotion of democratic values and the rule of law

 

  1. BHRC’s experience of embassies around the world is positive. In recent years, BHRC’s strongest example of support is from Colombia. Kirsty Brimelow QC has been involved in mediating between the Colombian government and San José de Apartadó Comunidad de Paz since 2013. This is a community of Cacao farmers – around 1000 people -who set up their own space in 1997 with rules which included not getting involved in the conflict, no alcohol and no weapons. They have suffered greatly as a result of this stance – with around 260 of them having been murdered.

 

  1. In 2005, whilst they were in discussions with government institutions, 8 members of the community were macheted to death. This included two children. Consequently, the community then cut off all dialogue with the State.

 

  1. In 2012, BHRC conducted a fact-finding mission. By March 2013 the community agreed that the Chair of BHRC could open talks with the Colombian government over a Constitutional Court Order made in 2012. Part of that Order included that the Colombian State should apologise to the Peace Community for past stigmatization.

 

  1. The mediated talks culminated in a meeting between Ms Brimelow QC and President Santos on 29th November 2013 at the Presidential palace in Bogotá. She requested the public apology.

 

  1. On 10th December 2013, the President apologized and asked forgiveness of San José de Apartadó. He apologized specifically for the stigmatization by former President Uribe of San José after the 2005 killings. Mediation ensued which had three strands:

 

    1. Security (army and Ministry of Defence);
    2. Justice (court and Fiscalia);
    3. Impunity (Ministry of Interior, Fiscalia, Presidential Human rights Unit).

 

  1. Meetings between the Vice- Minister of Defence, Fiscalia, Human Rights Advisors to the President and representatives of the peace community took place over four years. Inspection was facilitated to Miss Brimelow of the 17th Brigade’s human rights training. Ambassador Lindsay Croisdale - Appleby was of great assistance during his period in post. His support was appreciated by the community and attempts were made to facilitate his visit to the community. Former Ambassador John Dew also remained accessible to BHRC. He was a valued speaker at an event in London which BHRC hosted together with Peace Brigade International and a member of the peace community.

 

  1. This work fed into the wider peace process.  The peace community participated in the victims’ sessions in Cuba. A peace accord was signed in Cartagena on 26th September 2016.   Ms. Brimelow QC attended following an invite from the President.

 

  1. BHRC has found the relationship with Ambassador Tibber to be of great assistance. Communication lines have been open throughout and assistance provided. The embassy continues to support the work of Ms. Brimelow QC and BHRC. However, it is difficult to secure financial support with bids having failed in recent years. This is notwithstanding the substance of the work being supported by civil society, the Constitutional Court and by the Colombian State at the highest level. BHRC’s view is that this failing was a missed opportunity to further deepen and expand the work to strengthen the rule of law in Colombia.

 

  1. Reflecting on contact with embassies in recent years, we have experienced quick assistance in setting up meetings and helpful exchange of information from the embassies in Kuwait, Zimbabwe, Turkey, Egypt, Jamaica, the Maldives and Nigeria.

 

The FCO’s uses of external advice in forming policy, and its engagement with civil society organisations in the UK and elsewhere.

 

  1. BHRC’s experience of communication with the FCO within the UK is less satisfactory than its experience in other jurisdictions.

 

  1. It is not easy to access email addresses and contact information for desk officers in relevant departments. There is a general enquiries switchboard where the caller requests the operator to connect to the requested desk officer. However, often the desk officer does not answer the call, and email addresses are not readily available on the website or through the switchboard.

 

  1. Whereas BHRC used to hold regular meetings with desk officers, this has lessened in recent years. In part, this is due to turnover of desk officers which has interfered with continuity of contact, an apparent lack of expertise of the desk officer and lack of partnership at the meeting. BHRC would consider that it was giving a debrief on the human rights issues in the country with little input from the desk officer or joint strategy or follow up. BHRC comprises barristers who are working pro bono alongside high level legal practices. Undoubtedly, this requires some proactivity from the FCO for a partnership/policy development to function.

 

  1. Of concern is the lack of engagement by the FCO over Bahrain.   BHRC had submitted a clemency petition in the cases of Mohamed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa. On 19th July 2017, BHRC requested assistance in ensuring that the Clemency Petition was received by His Majesty Shaikh Hamad Bin Isa Al Khalifa owing to the lack of response from the Ambassador of Bahrain. However, BHRC did not receive a response or acknowledgment from the FCO desk officer. BHRC then released the Petition request to the press.

 

  1. In April 2018, BHRC requested a meeting with the desk officer in order to discuss the clemency petition and the cases of Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei’s family members and of Nabeel Rajab. The cases related to fundamental human rights involving the death penalty and torture as well as wider issues around human rights training in Bahrain. The Gulf team declined to meet and replied as follows:

 

Thank you very much for your email to the Bahrain Desk Officer and sight of the communications with the Bahraini authorities.

 

The British Embassy in Bahrain and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to follow developments in Bahrain closely. We have an open and frank dialogue with the Government of Bahrain where we are able to raise our concerns at an appropriately senior level.

 

The United Kingdom is opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and countries. We have made our position clear to the Government of Bahrain. The Foreign Secretary released a statement on 15 January 2017 reinforcing our position following the executions in Bahrain that same day. We welcome the recent transparent conclusion to the Special Investigations Unit investigations into allegations of mistreatment of Mohamed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa and we will continue to monitor the issue.

 

We have raised the case of Nabeel Rajab with the Government of Bahrain at the most senior levels. In his statement of 21 February, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, Mr Burt, made clear his concerns at the five-year sentence handed to Mr Rajab in addition to the two-year sentence he received in 2017. We understand Mr Rajab now has a right of appeal to this latest sentence and we will continue to closely monitor proceedings. We continue to urge Bahrain to protect freedom of expression for all its citizens, in line with its international obligations.

 

The Government of Bahrain have been clear that charges brought against Mrs Duaa Alwadaei and her relatives were in no way related to the work of Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei in the UK.

 

We encourage those with concerns about treatment in detention to report these to the appropriate oversight body and we encourage the oversight bodies to carry out swift and thorough investigations.

 

We are afraid it is not possible to arrange a meeting with the Bahrain Desk Officer at the moment but hope that the above sets out the UK’s position clearly.

 

Changes to the FCO’s Human Rights Annual Report and its Human Rights Priorities

 

  1. BHRC notes the aims behind the changes to the FCO’s human rights priorities to create three broad themes (i) Democratic Values and the Rule of Law (ii) Strengthening the Rules-Based International System and (iii) Human Rights for a Stable World.

 

  1. The new themes are however vague and lack specificity.  The advantage of flexibility is noted; however this raises the concomitant question of how issues are defined, the transparency of programmes within them and accountability absent such clarity.

 

  1. BHRC is also concerned that by removing specific and clear priorities (6+2 thematic), such as the abolition of the death penalty or prevention of torture, that there is an inevitable downgrading of such issues as they become subsumed into the three broader categories or themes of work.  There has been a lack of strategic focus in these areas and the FCO risks losing the advances it has made.

 

  1. It is appreciated that such issues are said to cut across all three themes; however the lack of specific focus inevitably sends a message globally.  Messaging and perception is key in the global arena.

 

  1. In light of public statements and admissions that human rights are not a top priority with regard to resource constraints, see e.g. comments made by Sir Simon McDonald, Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, the changes in priorities to vague themes also sends a message that human rights are simply not as important as they once were within the FCO and therefore to the UK.

 

  1. BHRC notes the lack of detailed objectives in the 2016 report with regard to its work at the UN.  This is regrettable and undermines transparency and accountability.

 

  1. BHRC welcomes however the work undertaken and reporting on key and oft neglected areas such as that on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, and Modern Slavery.

 

18th June 2018

 

Kirsty Brimelow QC

Chair of Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales

 

Joanne Cecil

Executive Member of Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales