1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations
and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments
381. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland referred the meeting to the document reflecting its response to the recommendations made to the United Kingdom during its universal periodic review on 10 April 2008 and stated that they are also available on the Council extranet. This document is available under symbol A/HRC/8/25/Add.1.
382. The United Kingdom stated that it gave serious consideration to every recommendation and considered whether acceptance would improve and extend the delivery of human rights in the United Kingdom and in its Overseas Territories.
383. The United Kingdom stated that it accepts the great majority of the recommendations either in full or in part, and explained the reasons for not having accepted some of the recommendations, which were a minority of them. It acknowledged that while development of human rights is seldom an easy or straightforward option for Governments, it believed this endeavour to be a vital test for good government.
384. After stating its view that the universal periodic review offers a genuine opportunity for States to take a serious, self-critical look at their own human rights situation, it expressed its appreciation for the positive and supportive response received from other States, and thanked the President of the Council, the members of the troika, civil society and United Nations stakeholders.
2. Views expressed by member and observer States of
the Council on the review outcome
385. Algeria thanked the United Kingdom for accepting to address the high incarceration rate of children, while it encouraged the United Kingdom to review more thoroughly the painful techniques applied to children and to harmonize them with their human rights obligations. It thanked the United Kingdom for acknowledging that legislation on freedom of expression and opinion should be in harmony with human rights obligations and for agreeing that pretrial detention should never be excessive. It noted that the claim that the Counter-Terrorism Bill allowing for pre-charge detention of over 40 days in the United Kingdom is hard to reconcile with the Human Rights Committee’s recent upbraiding of Algeria for increasing pretrial detention from 9 to 12 days. It regretted that no action is taken to accede to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and that there was no acceptance of access to prisons by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It commended the United Kingdom on accepting to comply fully with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, while it affirmed that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to extend these instruments to all overseas territories under the United Kingdom’s control.
386. Nigeria congratulated the United Kingdom on its constructive spirit towards the universal periodic review, which it deemed worthy of emulation. Nigeria further welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom recognizes that economic, social and cultural rights are as important as civil and political rights, and that they are interdependent and indivisible.
387. Pakistan took note of the fact that the United Kingdom decided not to respond during the review to any of the recommendations made and welcomed the comprehensive responses to these recommendations. Pakistan noted the statement made by the United Kingdom as regards the review process, which should be taken as a tool for critical and constructive self-analysis. In this regard, Pakistan noted that the United Kingdom’s willingness to accept most of the recommendations indicates that it is prepared to accept the challenge of implementation of relevant conclusions and recommendations, which are consistent with its national priorities and the set of accepted norms. Pakistan noted that the number of recommendations not accepted has found some explanation, which reflects the understandable divergence of views on issues which are, nevertheless, important. Pakistan expressed the hope that the United Kingdom will continue to intensify its efforts to harmonize and implement some of its recently enacted laws with international human rights standards.
388. The Russian Federation noted with satisfaction that all the recommendations it made had been accepted by the United Kingdom, which had also provided quite detailed answers on substantive matters. The way in which the review took place on the United Kingdom and the written answers received, yet again clearly asserted the fact that there are no ideal countries from the point of view of the observance of human rights. It noted that the United Kingdom is one of the oldest democracies, and that it is today confronted with a whole series of new challenges such as, for example, the fight against the terrorist threat; that it is not always possible to manage in respect of the highest human rights standards. It noted that the capacity to acknowledge existing problems and to adopt steps to eliminate these is one of the preconditions for advancement of the common goals of the universal and comprehensive promotion and protection of human rights.
389. The International Save the Children Alliance called on the United Kingdom to establish adequate institutional frameworks for the promotion and protection of children’s rights. It stated that the United Kingdom must withdraw its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as it is clear that its general reservation concerning immigration and citizenship is against the object and purpose of the Convention. It welcomed the Government’s current review and urged it to remove the general reservation as soon as possible. It stated that the United Kingdom must introduce with urgency clear and non-equivocal legislation which fully prohibits physical punishment in the home, the International Save the Children Alliance also stated that the
Government must fully protect asylum-seeking children and separated children who need a guardian so that they receive the support they require. The detention of children with their families in immigration removal centres continues. It added that the juvenile justice systems continue to violate standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the age of criminal responsibility is much too low, custody is not used as a last resort, and anti-social behaviour legislation allows children to be named and shamed in public despite the Committee on the Rights of the Child urging the Government to ensure that it respect the privacy of children in trouble with the law. Finally, it strongly urged the Government to accept all recommendations made in the course of its review and to commit to implement them urgently. The United Kingdom should also organize regular follow-up meetings between non-governmental organizations and all relevant Government departments, and report annually to the Council on progress being made.
390. Amnesty International welcomed many of the recommendations made by States to the United Kingdom, including the call to review all counter-terrorism legislation to ensure that it complies with the highest human rights standards; to reduce, rather than extend still further, the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects; and to recognize that all persons arrested or detained by United Kingdom armed forces, wherever and whenever that may be, should be entitled to the full protection of the human rights instruments to which the United Kingdom is a party. Given the prominence of the issue of counter-terrorism in the interactive dialogue, Amnesty International noted with surprise that recommendations did not specifically refer to the United Kingdom’s reliance on so-called “diplomatic assurances” to facilitate the return of individuals to States where they face the risk of grave human rights violations, including torture or other ill-treatment. Amnesty International expressed the belief that the use of such assurances undermines the absolute prohibition of torture and had urged the United Kingdom and others not to rely on such assurances. Amnesty International called on the United Kingdom to carry out effective, independent and impartial investigations into incidents where the actions of the police and other State agents may have led to violations of the right to life or of the right to be free from torture and other ill treatment. Amnesty International urged the United Kingdom to commit to repealing the Inquiries Act 2005 and to creating, in its place, a genuinely independent mechanism for judicial inquiries into serious allegations of human rights violations.
391. The Islamic Human Rights Commission congratulated the Council on the conclusions and recommendations forwarded, which reflected also many of its concerns. It expressed deep concern with the ever-increasing time of pre-charge and pretrial detention, which it had raised several times in consultations with the Government. It was especially concerned since the next day the bill increasing pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days would be put to Parliament. It stated that the need for this has never been identified, and noted that Britain has the longest pre charge detention limit in a liberal democracy. It urged the Government to refrain from this unnecessary damaging policy, and also recommended reviewing the anti-terrorism law in the light of the highest human rights standards. It expressed concern about the implementation of anti-terror laws which has resulted in racism and religious profiling, which, it noted, is evidently disproportional in the stop and search statistics.
Share with your friends: |
