[continued from previous message] 
  
 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under 
 torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the 
 sole exclusion of the use of such material. 
  
 17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in 
 torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as 
 complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the 
 actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a 
 hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an 
 acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity 
 argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning 
 points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this. 
  
 18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being 
 at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. 
 Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to 
 deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems 
 plainly complicit. 
  
 19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing 
 poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here 
 towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, 
 and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS 
 ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek 
 Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale. 
  
 MURRAY 
  
 Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguing that it 
 is legal to use information extracted under torture: 
  
 From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor 
  
 Date: 13 March 2003 
  
 CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD 
  
 Linda Duffield 
  
 UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE 
  
 1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said 
 that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN 
 Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I 
 said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read 
 the Convention. 
  
 2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The 
 nearest thing is article 15 which provides: 
  
 "Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to 
 have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in 
 any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that 
 the statement was made." 
  
 3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any 
 statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be 
 admissible as evidence. 
  
 [signed] 
  
 M C Wood 
 Legal Adviser 
  
                                 * 
 ================================================================ 
  NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems 
            Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 
  339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org 
  List Archives:   http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ 
  Subscribe: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr 
 ================================================================ 
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) 
  
 iD8DBQFDtFdMgVqEKMbi+yQRAjDUAJ9Zf0y3ZQabNQlrsrSh53V83LwHlwCfZ76v 
 VLazZr81472tB6cEFGrWA3A= 
 =s3yt 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)