Supreme Court: UK unlawful rendition may have been war crime

Supreme Court: UK unlawful rendition may have been war crime
 
The rendition of a Pakistani man by UK and US forces to Afghanistan, and his subsequent detention, has been described as “unlawful” and a possible war crime by Britain’s highest court.
 
Yunus Rahmatullah, 29, was detained by British forces in Iraq in 2004, and rendered by the US to Bagram prison, Afghanistan, where he remains held without charge or trial to this day.
 
The Supreme Court today unanimously dismissed the British’s government’s appeal to overturn the writ of habeas corpus issued in his case.  The court criticised the UK government for failing, on no less than three occasions, to request Mr Rahmatullah’s return. It has suggested that these failings may amount to a war crime, stating:
 
“The, presumably forcible, transfer of Mr Rahmatullah from Iraq to Afghanistan is, at least prima facie, a breach of article 49 [of the fourth Geneva Convention].  On that account alone, his continued detention post-transfer is unlawful.”  
 
The UK government  entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') with the US, which said the UK could seek his return if required, to justify his rendition. The MoU invoked and reinforced the Geneva Conventions which the US has consistently breached when detaining prisoners of the War on Terror.
 
The Supreme Court therefore held that the British Government should have demanded Mr Rahmatullah’s return when they found out he had been unlawfully transferred to Afghanistan, again when the Americans themselves had decided he no longer needed to be detained, and finally again when the war in Iraq ended.
 
The UK Government have sought to argue that, despite the MoU with the US, any attempts to secure Mr Rahmatullah’s release would have been futile. Today the Court sad that this argument was “unsupported by factual analysis” and that “no evidence was proffered to sustain it”. The Court identified this as the first time in 150 years when the US (“a mature democracy”) has “dishonoured” an extradition agreement. (para. 14)
 
Reprieve’s Legal Director Kat Craig said: “The UK government has nowhere left to turn. The highest court in the country has expressed serious concerns that grave war crimes may have been committed as a result of which a police investigation must be initiated without delay.  The Court has also found that Yunus Rahmatullah’s detention is unlawful. Mr Ramatullah, who has been imprisoned for over eight years despite being cleared for release by the US itself on the basis that he poses no threat, must now be released immediately.”
 
Reprieve’s Director Clive Stafford Smith said: “This powerful Supreme Court decision has huge ramifications. Clearly there will now have to be a full criminal investigation. But if the US has ‘dishonoured’ its commitment to the UK in this case for the first time in 150 years, and continues to violate law as basic as the Geneva Conventions, this also throws other extradition agreements with the UK into doubt.”

ENDS
 
Notes to editors
 
1. For further information, please contact Donald Campbell in Reprieve’s press office: +44 (0) 207 427 1082.
 
2. The full judgement can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0033_Judgment.pdf
 
The key extract with regard to unlawful detention and the Geneva Conventions is as follows:
 
“The, presumably forcible, transfer of Mr Rahmatullah from Iraq to Afghanistan is, at least prima facie, a breach of article 49 [of the fourth Geneva Convention].  On that account alone, his continued detention post-transfer is unlawful.” 
Quite apart from this, however, article 132 [of the fourth Geneva Convention] requires that every interned person must be released by the detaining power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no longer exist.  The conclusion of the Detainee Review Board that Mr Rahmatullah’s continued detention was “not necessary to mitigate the threat he poses” strongly suggests that the reasons that necessitated his internment no longer apply. And article 133 [of the fourth Geneva Convention] stipulates that internment should cease  as soon as possible after the close of hostilities.  There may be some scope for debate as to when hostilities closed but it is at the very least eminently arguable that they ended long ago.”
 
3. Further information on Yunus Rahmatullah’s case can be found on Reprieve’s website: http://www.reprieve.org.uk/cases/yunusrahmatullah/