UK criticised over control orders
The UK’s controversial use of control orders for terrorist suspects has been sharply criticised by the European Human Rights Commissioner.
Alvaro Gil Robles said that the recently introduced control orders violate basic human rights and that the tagging of alleged terrorist suspects and the imposing of curfews should be removed.
He said that the level of judicial oversight was not sufficient, saying: “The proceedings, indeed, are inherently one-sided, with the judge obliged to consider the reasonableness of suspicions based, at least in part, on secret evidence, the veracity or relevance of which he has no possibility of confirming in the light of the suspect’s response to them.
“Quite apart from the obvious flouting of the presumption of innocence, the review proceedings described can only be considered fair, independent and impartial with some difficulty.”
The Government has denied claims that the control orders infringe on public rights and are in breach of Article six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.
A total of ten people are currently held under control orders, introduced as part of the prevention of Terrorism Act approved earlier this year.
Control orders were brought in after the House of Lords ruled that the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects breached human rights legislation.
The report is also criticised the increasing use of anti-social behaviour orders.
Amnesty International said that the report was a full vindication of their concerns.
UK director Kate Allen, said: “The Commissioner’s report provides the Government with an agenda for action which is based on a firm commitment to human rights. The UK Government should heed the words of such a leading spokesperson on human rights. It must ensure that human rights are not undermined by anti-terrorism measures.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten has predicted that the report could spell “the beginning of the end” for control orders.
“I certainly think the home secretary needs to look very carefully at this report,” Mr Oaten told the BBC.
“I suspect that what you will find are some legal challenges over the next six months and we will be in to a very similar situation that we had with (detention without trial) in Belmarsh, where the government are resisting that there are human rights difficulties but end up actually having to recognise that they have lost various court cases.
“The key issue here is the government has said in the Queen’s Speech that it wants to bring forward some new terrorism legislation.”
He added: “My message to the home secretary suggests he needs to do that urgently and we are happy as an opposition party to look at alternatives to control orders – for example, acts preparatory for terrorism.”
