Freedom from Torture CEO Susan Munroe reflects on UN Convention anniversary

On 26th June each year, the United Nations’ International Day In Support of Victims of Torture calls on people, organisations and governments to come together in support of torture survivors. The date marks the establishment of the UN Convention Against Torture in 1987, since when its prohibitions on torture have been supported by 161 nations, and incorporated into international law.

As such, you might think that today’s event functions predominately as a memorial to past abuses. The global community has clearly accepted that torture is morally repugnant and legally unjustifiable; surely much of the battle to consign it to history has been won?

Sadly, while much progress has been made in the last 30 years, the reality of torture today is much darker and more troubling than those initial impressions suggest.

Sri Lanka, for example, acceded to the Convention Against Torture in 1994, ostensibly signalling a commitment to end torture, and reject the culture of impunity towards crimes committed during its long-running civil war. And yet, as Freedom from Torture’s work reveals, torture is still endemic nearly a quarter of a century on. Sri Lanka continues to be the most common country of origin for our clients, all of whom are torture survivors seeking refuge in the UK. It has held this position for each of the last four years.

In Freedom from Torture’s submission to the UN Committee against Torture in 2016 and our “Tainted Peace” report from 2015, we highlight the use of torture to persecute minorities and crush dissent, and show how the entrenchment of torture in the fabric of the Sri Lankan state has enabled it to persist, regardless of changes in political leadership.

In Freedom from Torture’s submission to the UN Committee against Torture in 2016 and our “Tainted Peace” report from 2015, we highlight the use of torture to persecute minorities and crush dissent, and show how the entrenchment of torture in the fabric of the Sri Lankan state has enabled it to persist, regardless of changes in political leadership.

This research is illustrated by the experiences of our clients. Anuja was married by arrangement at the age of 18 to a man who subsequently joined the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) before he was killed. In 2013, after the end of the official conflict, Anuja was kidnapped by security forces, along with her second husband and her son, held for 18 months and subjected to brutal torture, including rape. She has not seen her husband or her son since the day of their abduction, having fled Sri Lanka after her release and been granted asylum in the UK. Sri Lanka’s fine words rejecting torture offered no protection to Anuja, nor to thousands of others.

Sri Lanka’s dualities are mirrored by a worrying number of other nations: lip-service is paid at international level to prohibitions on torture, while a blind eye is turned to its realities in the domestic context.

Look at Turkey, where the UN Convention on Torture was signed and ratified as long ago as 1988. Despite these apparent protections, torture has been a persistent hallmark of the Turkish government’s attempts to control dissent and suppress political activity. Coverage of the attempted coup highlighted the government’s repressive response, but Freedom from Torture’s April 2017 report reveals evidence of torture long before the current political and security crisis.

Look at Turkey, where the UN Convention on Torture was signed and ratified as long ago as 1988. Despite these apparent protections, torture has been a persistent hallmark of the Turkish government’s attempts to control dissent and suppress political activity.

Closer to home, the UK’s proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing violence and persecution is poorly reflected by Freedom from Torture’s recent “Proving Torture” report, which identifies serious failings around the assessment of torture evidence during asylum applications.

These include a failure to accept the evidence of independent medical experts, and a consistent misunderstanding by asylum officers of required standards of proof, resulting in further trauma for vulnerable refugees, and unnecessary appeal costs borne by taxpayers.

Again, the mismatch between rhetoric and action makes it increasingly difficult for survivors to prove that their horrific ordeals really happened and risks their return, potentially to further torture, even though that is itself a breach of international law.

Closer to home, the UK’s proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing violence and persecution is poorly reflected by Freedom from Torture’s recent “Proving Torture” report, which identifies serious failings around the assessment of torture evidence during asylum applications.

If today’s recognition of torture survivors by the UN is to have practical meaning, then our focus must move beyond the adoption of high-level treaties and vague commitments. We must demand that countries who claim to respect human rights and reject torture reflect this in their actions as well as their words, and that real change is experienced by those within their borders.

We must, at a minimum, ensure that the fragile progress we’ve made so far is not reversed, for example by ensuring that refugee protections are not watered down in response to the recent terrorist attacks or during Brexit negotiations, and that we do not stand by in silence if President Trump attempts to re-authorise the USA’s use of torture.

We must ensure that the UK remains a respected partner, able to influence its allies to protect human rights, rather than jettisoning its values at the first sign of trouble. We must support and celebrate refugees and torture survivors in our own communities, helping them to rebuild their lives for themselves and their families.

Today offers us a chance to reflect on how far we’ve come in eradicating all forms of torture, and in realising the lofty ambitions of the UN. It should also remind us of just how far we still have left to go.