A new human rights culture is needed

Nov 08, 2008 Peeping Tom

---

I am not interested in the context in which persons were subject to “aggressive questioning.” Speaking about such contexts will only point us in the wrong direction, and will be misinterpreted as a justification for excesses by the law enforcement authorities.
Based on the report that has been submitted into accusations made by members of the army, who claimed that they were tortured, it would seem as if some amount of manhandling of persons had taken place.
However, from that report, a case of torture has not been made out; and therefore, before the main opposition runs here, there and everywhere, it needs to examine the report of the investigating team in detail and pay attention to those aspects that point to possible contradictions between what was said publicly by the victims and what was found by the investigating team.
The main opposition party seems eager to expose the names of those it says were involved in torture. We need not ask why such eagerness.
It has also threatened to take the matters to the international community. However, before that party takes its case internationally, it needs to do its own research and consider the fact that, during the Abu Ghraib controversy, the Americans insisted that placing a plastic bag over a victim and pouring water over the bag, an act that simulates the feeling of drowning, did not constitute an act of torture.
There is division within the international community as to what forms of aggressive questioning is allowed. The PNCR has to be sure that it can establish torture within the lowest common denominator of allowable conduct by the law enforcement authorities.
However, when it comes to the issue of justice for the two civilians from Buxton, the PNCR is not going to get very far. The PNCR may, at best, force the United Nations Human Rights Commission or the OAS to issue a statement condemning the practice of torture in Guyana; and even this may be difficult to obtain in light of the work that needs to be done to establish torture.
In the United States, the son of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor was convicted of torture. However, that is because US laws allows for the prosecution of persons where there is evidence of such conduct.
In 1994, the United States passed an extra-territorial statute which allows them to charge persons found on US soil, where there is evidence that the person was engaged in acts of torture, regardless of where that torture took place.
What the ranks of the Joint Services are accused of in Guyana pales in comparison to that which Taylor was accused of. In any event, there are persons who believe that the case against Taylor was politically inspired, because the US was uncomfortable with the son of Taylor in their jurisdiction, and thus wanted him out.
It must be recalled that the US Government had demanded that Charles Taylor (Sr) demits office before UN forces went into Liberia. The US managed to have their demand met.
There is another reason why it is doubtful that international charges will ever be laid against those persons the PNCR believe are behind the alleged torture of the two Buxtonians. The US itself has come in for strong criticism over the methods its law enforcement uses to extract information from suspects.
I really do not feel that the PNCR will get very far, but I do support the need for a new culture in law enforcement.
What are needed in Guyana are a new culture of governance and a new culture of law enforcement, both of which should be based on respect for the human rights of persons.
This has been the signal failure of the PPP Administration. It has failed to introduce a more humane approach to law enforcement and its own management of the country; it has failed to take the moral high ground and hold itself up to a higher standard.
This is where I believe changes need to commence. The Government has to now commit that it will not tolerate human rights abuses in the treatment of arrested persons.
It should make it known it would not condone even the slightest physical contact between a suspect and his interrogator. And certainly it should outlaw the squeezing of accused tentacles during interrogation sessions.
It should begin by setting in train an investigative mechanism which is automatically activated when allegations of abuse take place.
It should also institute now what it should have done sixteen years ago. It should begin a continuous process of reorientation of the Guyana Police Force and the army, drilling into them modern practices of questioning suspects, practices which respect the physical integrity of the arrested person.
Any lawyer in private practice will tell you that the police have ingenuous ways of making you talk. Sometimes you are given a few thumbs, sometimes it can get worse, with a plastic bag being placed over your head. Sometimes you are taken for a drive. These are, however, unacceptable methods of extracting information from suspects. It is time that the reorientation process begins.
At the level of the citizenry, we also have to change our ways. I have known of many cases where a thief is caught within a community and the licks that thief has to undergo is worse than what would happen to him in any police interrogation room.
If the public wishes to see a greater respect for human rights, it must give up the self-appointed prerogative to extract its own justice against persons caught committing illegal acts within communities. Change has to start with us, because the members of the Joint Services are themselves products of society, and if we live in a society where people think it is okay to beat-up thieves who are caught stealing, then we would have less grounds on which to press for higher standards in the questioning of suspects.

---

---