Sudan

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Of course, 10 years after the start of the conflict, the situation in Darfur remains serious. We have been pressing the Government of Sudan to honour their commitments. I understand the concerns that the noble Baroness has about the Doha peace agreement, but that is the framework within which we are working at the moment, supporting the efforts of the African Union and the UN joint chief mediator to engage the armed movements and encourage them to end violence and not to obstruct the peace process. We continue to give support, predominantly through humanitarian aid, of which a large chunk goes into Darfur.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend knows, the Security Council last Thursday expressed grave concern about the highly volatile situation in Abyei. What information does she have about the proposed referendum to determine the constitutional status of that territory being held among its permanent inhabitants towards the end of this month? What does she know about the increased military activity by the Sudan armed forces, particularly around the capital, Kadugli? Does she think these two events are connected?

[Baroness Warsi]

We are of course concerned about unilateral actions by either side in Abyei, but we believe that the Ngok community is organising a popular consultation of the community. However, this has not been endorsed by the Government of South Sudan. We understand the frustration that has led to this, but we encourage all parties at this stage to refrain from unilateral action. We are aware of the reports to which my noble friend refers of the build-up of Sudanese forces in South Kordofan. Whether or not that is linked to Abyei or the ongoing conflict in South Kordofan, we are not sure at this stage, and we urge restraint from the Sudanese armed forces. The noble Lord will of course be aware that, during the dry season, there is generally a build-up of armed personnel in the area, but we are keeping a close eye on the situation.

West Papua

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, reminded us of the betrayal by the UN of the people of West Papua after Indonesia invaded and occupied the territory in 1961; it then connived with the so-called Act of Free Choice, when 1,000 handpicked men were coerced into ratifying the annexation. Today, unfortunately, the UN seems just as helpless in dealing with the gross and persistent violations of human rights inflicted on the occupied people, of which a great many examples were given recently to the Human Rights Committee, including a 53-page report from Amnesty International. Another was a report by TAPOL, which campaigns for democracy and human rights in Indonesia, and I declare an interest as its honorary president, having been connected with it and its distinguished founder, Carmel Budiardjo, for the 40 years of its existence.

This detail describes some of the 200 political arrests in the territory in 2012. A number were shot, some of them fatally, while allegedly resisting arrest. Those who continue to speak about self-determination for the territory, as they have every right to do under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, risk prosecution under Article 106 of the criminal code, which prescribes life imprisonment for any attempt to separate a part of the state. I hope that the Prime Minister will invite President SBY to visit the UK in September next year so that he can see how we deal with demands for self-determination in this country.

The Indonesians should recall their own experiences with East Timor, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which achieved independence, and Aceh, which gained a substantial degree of autonomy, after long and bloody struggles. In both cases, the results were achieved through dialogue, as I remember from having been an adviser at the talks between the Indonesians and the Free Aceh Movement between 2000 and 2002. That process, and the agreement subsequently moderated by former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, could form a model for eliminating the causes of human rights violations in West Papua, rather than Indonesia pursuing futile attempts to eradicate the movement for self-determination by military force and draconian laws.

The results of the present policies are illustrated by a report from Human Rights Watch focusing on violence, impunity and the denial of access to foreign journalists and the UN special procedures. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions requested a visit in 2004 and again in 2008, but has never received a reply. This came up at the Human Rights Council, but in the 208 paragraphs of the Government’s reply to the list of issues raised, there was no reference to the egregious denial of the UN special procedures’ right of access to perform their duties.

Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, issued a statement in May calling on Indonesia to allow visits by journalists and by the UN special procedures. A visit by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, which had been scheduled for January, was postponed indefinitely. The UK was among the states that echoed the demand that they be admitted, and I hope my noble friend can tell your Lordships what further steps can be taken by the UN Human Rights Council, or what else can be done, to deal with the open defiance of the UN’s authority. I recognise that it would be difficult to get agreement on raising the powers of the UN’s human rights mechanism, but does my noble friend agree that if there are no coalitions of the willing ready to impose penalties on recalcitrant states, it is only to be expected that those states will ignore the Human Rights Council, as Indonesia does?

Indonesia’s Government say that there is freedom of the press, that people criticise the Government and that there is no bar even on separatist opinions. On the other hand, Amnesty says that peaceful political activists continue to be arrested and detained. Of the 76 political prisoners recorded by Papuans Behind Bars, no fewer than 42 are charged under Article 106; there are probably more, because in a number of cases the charges are unknown.

The situation in West Papua is almost certainly a lot worse even than we are able to describe, because of the barriers to access, particularly in respect of the UN special procedures. The special representative to the Secretary-General on human rights defenders was there in 2007, which was the last such visit. She found that a climate of fear prevailed,

“especially for defenders engaged with the rights of the Papuan communities to participation in governance, control over natural resources and demilitarization of the province”.

That provides a clue as to why Jakarta is so paranoid. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, West Papua is a land of immense mineral and forestry wealth and the Indonesians do not want outsiders poking their noses into the way that companies such as Freeport, which operates the largest gold and copper mine in the world, are causing permanent environmental damage and riding roughshod over the rights of local people, with the backing of the Government.

The Constitutional Court ruled in May that an Act that allowed the state to claim forest land previously owned under customary law by indigenous people was unlawful. If that has force, there should be equality of arms between the Government-backed multinationals and the indigenous people. I would be grateful if my noble friend would inquire into the effect of this ruling on the dispossession of indigenous people in previous years.

I am sorry that Indonesia is not a country that concerns the FCO, according to its annual report on human rights and democracy; nor is West Papua even mentioned in the section of that report dealing with indigenous rights. I respectfully suggest that human rights abuses in West Papua are serious enough to justify a much higher priority than the Government have accorded them in the past and that the issues raised in this debate demand their urgent attention.

Central Asia

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

I know that the noble Viscount comes to these matters with great expertise and knows the region incredibly well. The Government believe that to help the central Asian states, the best thing we can do is help to strengthen their political institutions to improve governance, increase accountability and support the rule of law. The noble Viscount has asked a wide-ranging question and I shall probably have to write to him in some detail in order to answer it fully. However, I can assure him that in opening our embassy in Bishkek in 2012, for example, we are now one of only three EU member states with embassies in all five of the central Asian states, and therefore we have the reach that will enable us to deal with some of these incredibly difficult issues.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, was not the message sent out by my noble friend during her tour of the region that we want to do business with them, and if that is what they are offering, we will not give them a hard time on human rights? Considering that both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are countries of concern to the FCO and that human rights abuses in all the central Asian republics are a prime cause of instability, could we address this imbalance? Will the Prime Minister take up human rights during his forthcoming visit to Kazakhstan?

[Baroness Warsi]

The noble Lord raises an important point. As the Minister with responsibility for central Asia and human rights, I do not think it is a question of either/or. It is important that the economic foundations of these countries are strengthened. It is important that issues around poverty are dealt with and that civil society too is empowered to raise these challenges. In every country that I visited in central Asia, of course we discussed the potential opportunities for them and for us, but in every country human rights was right at the top of the agenda. As the noble Lord said, both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are countries of concern in our annual human rights report.

Pakistan: Religious Violence

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Pakistan on curbing religious violence in that country.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, there are good reasons why the international community needs to pay attention to the upsurge of religious violence and hatred in Pakistan over recent years, and indeed to the related political violence during the recent elections in which more than 100 people were killed. Pakistan is due to be the largest recipient of UK aid in the world when it gets £446 million in 2014-15. It also receives billions of dollars from the United States in both economic and military aid in the effort to shore up the country’s stability. However, since 2001, an estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed in religious and political assassinations and massacres—all that aid money has not reduced the level of violence in Pakistan. There was a temporary lull during Pervez Musharraf’s presidency between 1999 and 2007, but over the past few years there has been a further deterioration.

At the same time, the stability of Pakistan has become vital to the peace of the region, with the withdrawal of allied forces from Afghanistan. The new Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has said that he will help the process by allowing NATO to use Pakistan’s roads for the transit of troops and equipment, but large convoys of US or UK forces on their way home will make a tempting target for the local Taliban and its associates. The presence of well organised and well armed groups of terrorists in Pakistan also poses a threat to neighbouring states, as we saw from the Mumbai atrocity in 2008.

Last Wednesday, my noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon perceptively suggested that Russia’s support for Assad was not a matter of looking after its only remaining supporter in the Middle East but a consequence of its experience in Dagestan and other Muslim republics where there was a war between Sunnis and Shias. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater also referred to the Shia-Sunni conflict, and he coupled this with the spread of jihadism and fundamentalism. In Syria and Iraq, there are interreligious civil wars.

The agenda of Sunni extremists such as al-Qaeda and its imitators across the Islamic world is to eliminate the Shia and other varieties of Islam, as well as the Kaffirs or unbelievers, from the face of the earth. Their ultimate goal is a universal caliphate based on what they imagine were the principles of governance under the four “rightly guided caliphs” who followed the Prophet in the seventh century. In Pakistan, one active and ruthless group of terrorists belonging to this loose coalition is the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. This outfit tried to kill Nawaz Sharif when he was Prime Minister in 1999, and the suicide bomber who killed Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and 26 others in 2007 was probably a member of the organisation. It claimed responsibility for the murder of four American oil workers in 1997 and for the bombing of the Protestant International Church in Islamabad in March 2002. But its main target has always been the Shia, as it brazenly acknowledges when it takes credit for the atrocities that it commits. The group says that the Shia are infidels, that they should be labelled as non-Muslims under the law, and that they are “wajib-ul-qatl”, an Urdu expression meaning “worthy to be killed”.

A semi-legal organisation with the same ideology of hatred is the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, which took over from a banned organisation called Sipah-e-Sahaba. The ASWJ fielded 130 candidates in the recent Pakistani elections, generally under the banners of the PML-N and an alliance of five Sunni religious parties generally known as the MDN. Under one of these labels, a man who had spent five years in prison for murdering six people in 1998 was elected to a seat in Punjab, and other terrorists may well now also be MPs. The Election Commission of Pakistan directed that in 55 constituencies, listed sectarian terrorists should be disqualified from standing, but it turned out that this was not within the powers conferred on returning officers by the ECP itself.

I am not going to recite the whole appalling history of the crimes perpetrated by these terrorists because it would take all day, but a couple of examples illustrate their mode of operations. On 3 April 2012, six buses were stopped in Chilas in the northern territories en route to Gilgit, Baltistan. The male passengers were taken off the buses and their identity cards examined for Shia names. At least 25 were shot dead on the spot. No official report has been published on this massacre and, although I understand that four or five people were arrested, no trials have taken place.

In January, twin bomb blasts in the busy market area at Alamdar Road, Quetta, killed at least 108 people and injured 120. A LeJ spokesman telephoned the media to say that it had committed this outrage and threatened that no Shia would be allowed to leave Balochistan alive. In February, a bomb contained in a water tanker exploded in Hazara Town, Quetta, killing at least 92 people and injuring more than 200. The police arrested 170 suspects, but there has been no news of trials, let alone convictions. In March, a bomb in the Shia area of Abbas Town in Karachi killed 45 people and wounded 150. These atrocities and the targeted assassinations of Shia intellectuals are part of a concerted attempt to wipe out the entire Shia population of Pakistan. That is genocide, as defined in Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

I have been sent hundreds of eyewitness statements and other reports from Shia organisations throughout Pakistan on these events, and have forwarded them to the UN Special Rapporteurs on Religious Freedom and on Extrajudicial Executions. I know that the Government do not intervene in the choice of subjects the special procedures take up, but as this is obviously one that would demand resources well beyond those available to the special rapporteurs, I would be grateful if we might consider making a one-off contribution to the Human Rights Commission, if the matter is pursued.

The special procedures should also take action on the relentless persecution of the Ahmadi Muslims, in spite of the enormous contribution they have made to the development of Pakistan; for example, in the persons of Sir Zafarullah Khan, the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan, and Dr Abdus Salam, Pakistan’s only Nobel Prize-winner. The most heinous atrocity against this community was in May 2010, when simultaneous terrorist attacks on its two principal mosques in Lahore during Friday prayers killed 94 people and injured more than 120. The Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims, are victims of relentless persecution under the blasphemy laws, are denied voting rights and are in practice denied access to the higher ranks of all the professions.

As with the Shia, the Ahmadis are victims of targeted assassinations, encouraged by another extremist organisation, the Khatme Nabuwwat, which is free to spread its messages of hatred and violence. In 2012, 20 Ahmadis were killed, and the leader of the community in Rabwah, the centre of the community, was tortured to death by the police. Ahmadi places of worship were demolished, mostly in Punjab, and the police themselves demolished graves in Faisalabad and Mangat Uncha. A dozen armed men vandalised 120 gravestones in Model Town, Lahore. Dozens of Ahmadis were arbitrarily arrested, and Ahmadi publications were summarily banned. The Friday Times said that the fetters imposed on the Ahmadi community were reminiscent of the restrictions imposed on the Jews by Nazi Germany in 1935.

I return to the ideology which threatens the survival of religious minorities and poses an even wider menace to the safety and stability of Pakistan itself, being promoted as it is in mosques and madrassahs financed by Saudi money to the tune of an estimated $100 million a year. It is intolerant and exclusivist, maintaining that all who do not subscribe to the Salafist version of Islam are infidels belonging to the Dar al-Harb, the realm of the unbeliever. In the extreme forms it takes in Pakistan, it promotes sectarian and religious hatred and teaches that killing unbelievers is approved by God. We need a worldwide strategy to combat this monstrous ideology. I believe that such is the magnitude of the danger it presents to world peace, only the United Nations Security Council has the authority and resources to grapple with it. I hope that the Government will consider how best to raise it at that level.

Crime: British Victims Abroad

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

The figure in relation to the number of murders and violent deaths that have occurred in the past year is 60. I am not sure whether that is broken down by country. It probably is, and if so, I will certainly make it available to the noble Lord. There are some very clear guidelines under the Vienna Convention as to the obligations that states have about notifying us and doing so within a specific timeframe when our citizens are caught up in these matters. Going back to the main issue, it is important that we are very clear about what support we can give. We are very clear about the travel advice we give to people when they go to many places where we may not, for example, have embassies or high commissions and that we then support those who are the most vulnerable.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, is it not correct to say that the Vienna Convention on consular relations prohibits our consuls, or the consuls of any other country for that matter, from making representations on behalf of their citizens who are also citizens of some other country?

[Baroness Warsi]

It is a real issue, but I can also inform the noble Lord that there are many occasions where citizens are dual nationals, but we still make representations to those Governments, even though they happen to be dual nationals within that country.

Bangladesh: Riots

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have received regarding the number of people killed in recent riots in Bangladesh, and the theft or arson of property belonging to minority communities.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, the Government are deeply concerned by reports of the recent violence in Bangladesh. Sadly, there have been more than 70 deaths and many injured as a result of the recent protests. There are reports of 24 Hindu temples, 122 houses and dozens of shops being destroyed across Bangladesh. We deplore attacks on places of worship and private property and have urged the Government to ensure that investigations are conducted and that those responsible are held to account. As I said during my recent visit to Bangladesh, violence and vandalism have no place in legitimate protest.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I very much welcome the statement issued by my noble friend yesterday condemning the violence which, as she said, has led to the deaths of more than 70 people, most of whom died at the hands of the security forces. Have the Government of Bangladesh ordered the security forces not to use live ammunition against demonstrators unless it is absolutely unavoidable, in accordance with the UN basic principles on the use of force by law enforcement officials? With regard to the widespread attacks on temples, houses and other property of religious minorities—a repeat of what happened after the 2001 elections—will the Government of Bangladesh pay full compensation to the communities for the losses that they have suffered, as Sheikh Hasina promised to the citizens of Ramu, who suffered a similarly gratuitous attack by extremists last September?

[Baroness Warsi]

Officials are currently confirming whether the Bangladeshi security forces are operating in accordance with the UN basic principles on disturbances. A briefing for heads of mission was held by the Foreign Minister, Dipu Moni, on 7 March in which she said that law enforcement agencies would deploy force in situations of self-defence and to maintain public order, but that they would first use other means of crowd control. She also informed in a briefing that the district administrations are distributing relief and reconstruction material to the families that have been affected by the violence. We continue to urge the Government of Bangladesh and others in Bangladesh to urge restraint in this violence.

Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on once again articulating the gross violations of human rights that are taking place in Sudan, and on the intrepid way in which she brings us first-hand accounts of the suffering of the people in these regions. It really is beyond the call of duty and she does a great service to this House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I was in the middle of saying how wonderful the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is. I do not want to repeat everything I have said, but would add that I particularly admire the way in which she defies nasty regimes like that of al-Bashir and ignores the warnings that she must fill in paperwork before she visits the horror-stricken areas of South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur. We are indebted to her for bringing her first-hand accounts to your Lordships’ debates. I am also grateful to her for being a co-signatory of the letter she has mentioned—I am also a signatory—addressed to our own Secretary of State and the US Secretary of State. It is signed by Members of this Parliament and Members of the US Congress and calls on them both to move the UN Security Council to take robust action in order to halt these genocidal conflicts.

I will concentrate specifically on the aerial attacks which figure in that letter and which have so far not been dealt with satisfactorily by the UN Security Council. The Security Council last passed a resolution on Sudan a couple of weeks ago. It commended the efforts of UNAMID, the joint AU/UN mediation, the African Union high-level implementation panel and leaders in the region, and it reiterated its full support for all those authorities. But why is the panel of experts, which is mentioned in 13 out of the 18 operative paragraphs of the resolution, omitted from that list? Why has its report, which is crucial to any understanding of the reasons these conflicts are continuing indefinitely, not been published? Perhaps my noble friend can throw some light on that when she replies. Surely the world is entitled to know which members of the Security Council are objecting to publication, what in the panel’s report they do not like, and their reasons for the objections. The Security Council says that it will further study the panel’s recommendations and consider appropriate next steps, but that process will also presumably be shrouded in secrecy.

Under paragraph 6 of Security Council Resolution 1591 of March 2005, which was reaffirmed in the latest resolution, the council demanded an immediate cessation of offensive military flights over the Darfur region and asked the AU ceasefire commission to share information on this matter with the panel of experts. However, the panel was not charged with investigating the aerial attacks in Darfur, nor has it specifically been asked now to report on the bombing of South Kordofan and Blue Nile. The current resolution demands in the preamble, but not in the operative paragraphs that are governed by chapter 7, that aerial bombardments should cease. Will my noble friend explain whether this means that there is no binding force on the Government of Sudan? What other explanation is there for that separation from the chapter 7 provisions?

According to Radio Dabanga on 6 February, bombing by the Sudanese Air Force Antonovs has recently intensified, destroying the villages of Kiro and Sharafa, and killing civilians in the Dalma area. Al Arabiya News reported that four civilians were killed and 37 wounded when the air force attacked Derib al Reih village in South Darfur last Thursday. The Antonovs are also busy in Blue Nile. Already, more than 200,000 refugees have fled to South Sudan, and the people who remain are demoralised into inactivity, leading to food shortage and malnutrition. The Nuba Reports website said that in South Kordofan an Antonov bombed Ngortang village on February 17, killing five civilians.

These attacks and many others are designed to spread terror and force black Africans across the frontier to join the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are destitute in the northern states of South Sudan. This is a crime against humanity that deserves a proportionate response to replace the ineffectual and repetitive expressions of concern by the UN Secretary-General, the AU and others. The expert panel’s mandate should be extended to require its report to the Security Council every 90 days to include details of every attack by the Sudanese Air Force or ground forces on civilians in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile. If the Security Council does not agree to that proposal, as seems only too probable, a coalition of the willing should provide the funding to a suitable NGO to research and publish such a report.

Again, assuming that the Security Council is unwilling to act, this coalition of the willing should seek to dissuade Ukraine from selling or leasing ostensibly civilian Antonovs to Sudan, thereby escaping the military embargo, but which are likely to be converted for military use. This same coalition might commission the NGO to carry out a survey of the origins of spares for the Antonovs and their engines. Will my noble friend confirm that those suppliers would be violating the embargo?

One suggestion made by Dr Eric Reeves of Smith College in Massachusetts is that Khartoum should be warned that every time the bombers kill civilians a drone will be sent to destroy one of the aircraft at El Obeid airbase. There is an emerging international norm of responsibility to protect, which states that when a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and, even more so, when the state is committing crimes against humanity against its own citizens, the international community should intervene with force after peaceful measures, including sanctions, have been tried and failed. That norm assumes that the Security Council would invoke the R2P under chapter 7, as in the case of Libya.

However, the use of drones across international frontiers, without the sanction of the Security Council, is already practised against terrorist targets. The Antonovs are being used to commit acts of terrorism against civilians, and taking them out, one by one, in response would be a counterterrorist activity. Will my noble friend consider that suggestion and will the Government in any case explain how otherwise, in the absence of any significant changes either in the panel of experts’ mandate or the sanctions regime, the Government expect any let-up in the suffering of millions of people in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan over the coming year?

Iraq: Camp Liberty

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

Before I answer the noble Lord’s very important question, I am sure the rest of the House will want to join me in wishing him a very happy birthday.

The noble Lord raises an important point. The Secretary-General, whom I met with last week at the United Nations, is doing a very important job, with the support of the international community, in some very difficult circumstances. The specific situation in relation to Camp Liberty is that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Iraq, as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission, regularly reports about the situation in Camp Liberty and Camp Ashraf. Our own officials visited in July last year and the international community does not, at this stage, find any credible evidence to support the matters that have been raised by Mr Tahar Boumedra.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, considering that many of the complaints that are made by the residents of Camp Liberty and, indeed, Camp Ashraf, against the Iraqi authorities and UNAMI could be easily verified or refuted and that some have been confirmed not only by Mr Tahar Boumedra but by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, will the Government press for an inspector to be appointed by the UN Secretary-General to look into the serious allegations of ill treatment, such as denial of access to urgently needed medical treatment, which has lead to the deaths of two inmates of Camp Liberty? Since we have been aware for some time that 52 residents of Camp Liberty were formerly refugees in the United Kingdom, will my noble friend press for their immediate transfer to the UK?

[Baroness Warsi]

As my noble friend is aware, the situation in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty is in many ways much better than that of residents in Baghdad. For example, electricity is available for 24 hours a day, as opposed to the three hours for which it is available in some parts of Baghdad. About 200 litres of water are available to residents there, when about 90 litres are available in some parts of Baghdad. My noble friend raises the very important issue of the recent death of a resident there. We share those concerns about the death of Behrooz Rahimian and have made inquiries specifically in relation to the medical assistance that he received. We are aware that there is a doctor and medical facilities on site 24 hours a day; there is also the opportunity to receive medical assistance from doctors in Baghdad. We understand that Mr Rahimian was afforded medical assistance in relation to his illness.

Homosexuality in Nigeria and Uganda

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend raises a number of important issues. We take LGBT rights very seriously. The matter has been raised publicly and privately by both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We also support a number of NGOs on the ground, in both Uganda and Nigeria, that work to support the LGBT community and do work in relation to HIV/AIDS support and information, which relates to those communities as well as others. Asylum applications are considered, as are any other asylum applications, under the convention.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, would the Government consider amending Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to provide that gay men from Nigeria have an in-country right of appeal against refusal of an asylum application, as gay women from Nigeria already do? Before making any further representations to the Government of Uganda, will the Government consult Sexual Minorities Uganda, the umbrella NGO that campaigns for legal and social equality for LGBT people in that country?

[Baroness Warsi]

As my noble friend is aware from previous Questions, unsuccessful asylum claimants have a right of appeal to the UK courts. Designation under Section 94(5) does not deny a right of appeal to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual applicants from designated countries, including Nigeria. However, claims from nationals of designated countries for non-suspensive appeals that are clearly unfounded must be certified as such and therefore can be appealed only from outside the United Kingdom. There are no plans at this stage to change this.

On my noble friend’s second question, the British High Commission in Kampala is in regular contact with the NGO that he mentioned—Sexual Minorities Uganda—and other Ugandan civil society groups that are campaigning for improved human rights in Uganda. We have in the past provided funding for organisations, including Sexual Minorities Uganda, for training, advocacy and the cost of legal cases related to the protection of LGBT communities and human rights.

Bahrain

Lord Avebury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the decision by the highest court in Bahrain on 7 January to uphold life sentences imposed on eight opposition figures and human rights activists.

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, we are deeply dismayed by the decision to uphold sentences against this group of political activists. We have previously commented that at the time that these individuals were originally convicted, reports acknowledged by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry suggested that some defendants had been abused in detention, denied access to legal counsel and coerced into confessing.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the Minister Mr Alistair Burt for the expression of concern. My noble friend will recall that the Bassiouni commission of inquiry said that the sentences of political detainees should be commuted and that they should be compensated for the tortures that they endured, and the King said that he accepted those recommendations. Why are we not pressing the King to honour his promises? Do the Government recognise that there is not the faintest possibility of dialogue, reconciliation or peace on the streets as long as the martyrs remain in custody?

[Baroness Warsi]

My noble friend raises an important point. He will be aware that the BICI—the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry—did not consider the National Safety Courts, the special military courts set up to try people arrested during the disturbances, to be the correct method, and therefore recommended a retrial. The current prisoners that my noble friend speaks about were subsequently retried and sentenced. They appealed that sentence but unfortunately it has been upheld. He is right to say that not all the BICI recommendations have been implemented. I met the Foreign Minister in November last year and I can assure my noble friend and other noble Lords that our conversation was frank, robust and honest. I made it very clear that we expect progress to be made in relation to both the BICI recommendations and the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review.