VI. RedressVictims of torture, arbitrary arrest and violations of due process rights in Jordan are generally unable to obtain redress for these violations. As already noted, the State Security Court military prosecutor and the Court itself lack independence from the GID’s military officers who commit these violations. GID officers, prosecutors and two out of three judges at the SSC bench are themselves military officers. The Jordanian constitution guarantees personal liberty and stipulates that “[n]o person may be detained or imprisoned except in accordance with the provisions of the law.”201 For detention (except in flagrant arrests) to be lawful under Jordanian law, prosecutors must issue a warrant for arrest.202 Jordan’s Penal Code makes it a crime for officials to carry out arbitrary arrests: “Any official who arrests or imprisons a person in circumstances other than those provided for by law shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three months to one year.” The code further punishes any official who “uses his office in a direct or indirect manner to obstruct or postpone the implementation of the provisions of the law or regulations in force… with a prison term from one month to two years.”203 While maintaining an individual’s right to pursue private claims for damages in civil court, Jordanian law also obliges the state to take disciplinary action or initiate criminal prosecution against those who commit serious offences. The Public Security Law, which specifies penalties for members of the security forces who violate the law, punishes “any individual [who] commits any one of the following transgression, [e.g.] exercising authority unlawfully which begets harm to any person or to the state, [… with] one of the following penalties:
Article 107 of Jordan’s Criminal Procedure Code gives every detainee the “right to present at any time to a prison official a complaint in written form or verbally, and to request him to transmit it to the attorney general. The official must accept and transmit it…”206 Article 108 of the code makes it incumbent on anyone who knows of an arbitrary or unlawful arrest to inform the attorney general’s office. Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Code is even more specific: “Every authority or its employees carrying out official duties who gain knowledge of a felony or misdemeanor taking place is obliged to notify the general prosecutor concerned and to send him all the information and minutes and papers related to the crime.”207 GID or other military officers, however, are tried under the Military Procedure Code. A military prosecutor has jurisdiction over all crimes involving military officers, including GID officers.208 The military prosecution department belongs administratively to the Military Judicial Institution.209 The military prosecutor’s offices are located within the GID, and his superiors in the military also oversee GID investigators and appoint the military judges at the State Security Court. A prosecutor’s freedom to determine whether to prosecute violations committed by fellow security officers may therefore be significantly compromised. There are further reasons why so few security officers are held accountable for their actions, even in civil suits. Sabr al-Rawashda, the Amman first instance court prosecutor who told us that the overwhelming majority of detainees do not exercise their right to appoint a lawyer when charged with a crime and may not get a court-appointed lawyer (see above), made the observation that without visits by a lawyer, or by family, there may be no witness to human rights violations for those detainees whose cases never reach a trial stage, especially where medical officers do not come forward or are not called on to give testimony. Al-Rawashda told Human Rights Watch that to his knowledge no GID official had ever been prosecuted for arbitrary arrest or torture.210 Sufian `Obaidat, a lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that an ordinary court would reject any such civilian claim for lack of competency, citing the jurisdiction of military courts over GID officers.211 All former detainees whom Human Rights Watch interviewed said that they had no interest in pursuing claims against those who wrongfully arrested or tortured them. The reply of Walid S.’s mother was typical: “Thank God it is over, we do not want to have anything to do with this any longer and just get on with our lives.”212 The prosecutor who dropped charges against Basim F. because he found no evidence for the charges of forging a license plate asked him if he wanted to press charges against the police officer who had wrongly detained him and handed him over to GID officers at an Amman police station. Basim declined, preferring to put the matter behind him, his brother told Human Rights Watch.213 International human rights law obliges the state to provide redress for violations of the right to liberty of the person and to security of the person. In the words of the ICCPR, “Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”214 A state has a clear obligation to investigate credible allegations of torture. The Convention against Torture, to which Jordan became a party in November 1991, requires in Article 4 that: “Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.” The state also has an obligation to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture. Article 13 of the Convention against Torture states: “Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities.” Article 12 of the convention obliges states to act even where a torture victim does initiate the complaint: “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.”215 Victims can also press civil charges against the person or entity responsible. The UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) has previously commented that Jordanian law does not seem to prohibit all acts of torture as required by its human rights obligations.216 Article 208 of Jordan’s Penal Code states: “Anyone who inflicts on a person any form of unlawful violence or harsh treatment with a view to obtaining a confession to an offence or information thereon shall be punished …”217 A Jordanian government representative told the CAT in 1995 that Jordanian law considers only attacks on a person’s “physical integrity” as crimes.218 He clarified, without citing a legal basis, that “methods of investigation that involve duplicity, coercion, intimidation, the use of narcotic drugs, lie-detectors or recourse to solitary confinement, electric shocks or other forms of cruel treatment are prohibited by Jordanian law and any investigatory procedure based thereon is null and void.”219 Torture remains hard to prove, though, because Jordanian law requires the perpetrator to show intent to extract a confession and awareness that extracting confessions under coercion is a criminal act. In its report to the Committee Against Torture, the government of Jordan explained: “The perpetrator must also be aware of the unlawfulness of his behaviour, since criminal intent can be established only by proving such awareness and the existence of a desire to achieve the objective.”220 The Jordanian victims of torture interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that while they may be able to visually identify perpetrators, they never learned their names. Article 4 of the GID law allows GID officials to assume pseudonyms to conceal their real identities (see above). Unless the GID assigns pseudonyms on a permanent basis, or keeps a daily roster matching officers’ pseudonyms with their real identities, and cooperates in an investigation, the victim can only rely on recalling individual visual or other traits that identify his perpetrators. The officers in military uniform taking part in the torture, three detainees said, wore face masks. Concealing the real identity of GID officers also counters a number of articles of the Criminal Procedure Code which require arresting, detaining, and interrogating officers to sign protocols with their name. One former detainee, Rami S., told Human Rights Watch that he asked to file a complaint with the director of the GID about the abuse he suffered, but that the officer refused.221 Because the GID kept Rami in incommunicado detention for five days before transferring him to another prison, he was unable to list an independent person as a witness. Another former detainee told Human Rights Watch that GID interrogators prohibited him from saying his own name aloud, and that GID personnel address all detainees equally as “hajji” so that other detainees would not learn the real names of one another.222 No detainee is able to know the identity of a fellow detainee and consequently associate screams, or the times of entering or exiting cells, with a particular detainee. Consequently, there are no other witnesses to confirm that torture has taken place in GID facilities besides the perpetrators and doctors. Testimony from doctors who witnessed the effects of torture can be a prime source of evidence for victims of torture to substantiate their claim to an investigation or in court.223 Some forms of torture that detainees allege that they have experienced at the hands of GID officers leave few physical traces that investigators can confirm forensically, such as forcing a detainee to kneel and stand up repeatedly. Jordanian lawyers told Human Rights Watch that some detainees had attempted unsuccessfully to obtain an independent medical evaluation while in detention or to call prison doctors to testify on their behalf.224 The UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2001) sets out standards for conducting impartial investigations into allegations of torture. The second principle makes clear that even reports of torture without evidence must lead to an investigation: “States shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture or ill-treatment are promptly and effectively investigated. Even in the absence of an express complaint, an investigation shall be undertaken if there are other indications that torture or ill-treatment might have occurred.”225 Doctors who as witnesses provide testimony to an investigation are entitled to protection under Principle 3: “Alleged victims of torture or ill-treatment, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence, threats of violence or any other form of intimidation that may arise pursuant to the investigation.” The police court reportedly does try a number of alleged torture cases each year, although none have involved the GID. In 2004, for example, a court sentenced prison guards who beat an inmate to death in Qafqafa prison to several years behind bars. Such cases remain the exception, and prosecution of security officials has not yet crossed the threshold of the General Intelligence Department. Non-judicial accountabilityIn 2003, the Jordanian government created a National Center for Human Rights pursuant to Law 75 (2002). The law tasks this center with receiving and following-up individual complaints. In its report for the period June 2003 to December 2004, the center said it had received 250 complaints of ill-treatment in security centers; in criminal investigation branches; and in the counter-drug and counterfeiting branch (a special law enforcement branch), including two complaints of cruel and inhuman treatment against the GID. The GID, the center wrote, had “the broadest powers and responsibilities to safeguard the rights to security, freedom, and personal safety of the individual, but they only have the weakest of judicial, legislative, and even administrative oversight structures.”226 In its 2005 report, the center included observations from two visits to the GID detention facility in September and December 2005, noting: “One of the [detainees at the GID] stated that he had been subjected to beatings and others stated that they had been subjected to torture as well.”227 The center’s report does not analyze the compatibility of Jordanian and international human rights law. Where officers do not violate procedural aspects of Jordanian law, the center does not pursue complaints.228 International scrutinyIn the absence of judicial remedies, effective parliamentary oversight, or pressure by civil society, it falls to Jordan’s international backers to demand that the government bring the operations of the GID and the laws that govern it into line with international human rights standards. Western governments and commentators regularly praise Jordanian intelligence service for its work preventing terrorist acts,229 but only rarely mention human rights abuses. Eleven years ago, in 1995, the Committee against Torture called on the Jordanian government to establish independent oversight over detention procedures at the GID.230 This recommendation remains just as relevant in 2006, and if Jordan is serious about complying with international human rights standards, the government will make this a top priority. 201 Art. 8, Jordan’s constitution. 202 Art. 114, Criminal Procedure Code. 203 Arts. 178 and 182, Penal Code. See also Committee against Torture, Initial reports of States Parties due in 1992: Jordan. CAT/C/16/Add.5, March 3, 1995. 204 Wakil is the highest rank in the Jordanian army for enlisted personnel, roughly corresponding to Master Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major in the U.S. Army. 205 Art. 37, Public Security Law No 38 of 1965. 206 Art. 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 207 Art. 25, Criminal Procedure Code. 208 Arts. 2 and 3, Military Criminal Prosecution Law 31, 2002. Article 7 of the GID law stiputates that GID officers are exempt from trial before the State Security Court. Instead, a court comprising GID officials judges GID officers accused of wrongful acts that would otherwise fall under the SSC’s jurisdiction. Article 85 of the Public Security Law shields non-GID security officers from the jurisdiction of civilian courts and requires that trials of security officials be held in a “police court,” presided over by three security officers, at least one of whom must have a law degree. Article 85 provides that the prosecution at this court, too, comprises and is appointed by security officials. 209 Human Rights Watch interview with lawyer Sufian `Obaidat, Amman, May 26, 2006. 210 Human Rights Watch interview with Sabr al-Rawashda, prosecutor, Amman, September 22, 2005. 211 Human Rights Watch interview with lawyer Sufian `Obaidat, Amman, May 26, 2006. 212 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Walid S.’s mother, Zarqa, March 25, 2006. Basim F.’s brother, Muhammad, expressed similar feelings: Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Basim F.’s brother, Amman, November 22, 2005. 213 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Basim F.’s brother, Amman, November 22, 2005. 214 Art. 9.5, ICCPR. 215 Art. 12, United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishments (CAT), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, entered into Force June 26, 1987, ratified by Jordan on November 13, 1991: 216 Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture: Jordan, A/50/44, July 26, 1995, paras.159-182.
217 Committee Against Torture, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Art. 19 of The Convention, Initial reports of States Parties due in 1992, Addendum, Jordan, November 24, 1994, para. 48. 218 Ibid. The Jordanian government wrote in the report that “Jordanian criminal law prohibits all ways and means of obtaining information or confessions that are prejudicial to physical integrity.” 219 Ibid., para. 59. 220 Ibid.,para. 49. 221 Human Rights Watch interview with Rami S., Amman, January 8, 2006. 222 Human Rights Watch interview with Muhammad M., Amman, January 8, 2006. “Hajji,” originally a term of respect for someone who has performed the Muslim pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, is often used by security forces in a slightly derogatory form as a generic name. 223 Human Rights Watch also interviewed the relatives of Sulaiman Furaihat, two months before Jordan executed him after the State Security Court had found him guilty of murdering U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in 2002, rejecting the lawyer’s claims that Furaihat’s confession had been extracted under duress. The relatives told Human Rights Watch that the doctor in Bireen prison treated Sulaiman for injuries to his eye sustained as a result of torture at the GID over three months, yet the doctor did not appear as a defense witness. Human Rights Watch interview with the aunt and the cousin of Sulaiman Furaihat, Amman, January 8, 2006. 224 Defense attorneys said they are unable to call doctors practicing at the GID central facility to testify in trials at the State Security Court. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Samih Khrais, Amman, May 24, 2006. 225 Istanbul Protocol, “Investigation and Documentation of Torture.” 226 National Center for Human Rights, “The Situation of Human Rights, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 2005,” p. 13. 227 Ibid. 228 Human Rights Watch interview with Nisrin Zuraikat, Amman, September 11, 2005. 229 Ken Silverstein, “U.S., Jordan Forge Closer Ties in Covert War on Terrorism,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 2005: ”GID personnel are characterized as highly capable interrogators by Frank Anderson, a former CIA Middle East division chief.” 230 UN Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations of the Committee against Torture: Jordan, A/50/44, July 26, 1995, paras.159-182. |