Ministers accused of weakening torture laws

The UK government has been accused of attempting to weaken legal protections for torture victims as it prepares to agree to a “political declaration” with other Council of Europe members.

Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, is expected to sign the declaration on Friday, which aims to change the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to make it easier to deport refused asylum seekers and foreign criminals.

Keir Starmer’s government claims that articles 3 and 8 of the convention have been misused by criminals, but legal experts and human rights organizations criticize the move as a “grubbily political deal” that risks playing into the hands of repressive governments.

Prof Eirik Bjorge KC, author of Courts as Faithful Trustees: Domestic Application of the ECHR, states that the declaration seeks to interfere with the independence of the judiciary and will be rejected by judges. He says the declaration is a “grubbily political initiative” that seeks to water down the most fundamental guarantee in the ECHR, the absolute prohibition in article 3, which is ignoble and unlikely to have any effect on the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court.

Kolbassia Haoussou, a director at the NGO Freedom from Torture and a torture survivor, says: “The UK has long prided itself on fairness, compassion and upholding the rule of law. Chipping away at article 3 would not just undermine that reputation but send a dangerous message to repressive regimes around the world that even the most fundamental protections can be bargained away.”

The UN Committee Against Torture expressed concerns that efforts to overhaul the convention were undermining the absolute nature of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

Government sources denied that torture victims would be affected by the change, saying that “absolute protections” would remain.

Planned Declaration and Its Implications

The declaration is expected to set out a list of clarifications in the way that the convention should be interpreted by the European court of human rights in Strasbourg and by national courts.

International law experts, including Prof Veronika Fikfak of University College London and Prof Mikael Rask Madsen of the University of Copenhagen, stated that the council’s declaration appeared to be a “signalling exercise” to warn courts to “back off”. They noted that states could have asked the court for an advisory opinion on protections in the field of migration, but they chose not to do so, suggesting that this is mostly a signalling exercise to the court to back off.

European ministers will discuss plans to send thousands of refused asylum seekers to third-country hubs, with Alain Berset, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, saying that discussions about the removal of people who arrived in Europe by irregular routes would take place “at a multilateral level”.

Starmer’s government has attempted to set up “return hubs” after the rise of Reform UK in the polls, with Shabana Mahmood telling MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries, but no deals have been confirmed.

Cooper stated: “We have been working with neighbours across Europe to ensure that countries can take strong action against illegal migration, control borders, uphold the rule of law and respect international standards.”

Criticism and Concerns

They criticize the declaration for undermining the absolute prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and sending a dangerous message to repressive regimes around the world.

International law experts say the declaration might better be understood as a stepping stone to hardening domestic stances on migration and creating a common political position.