Amnesty International Responds to the Assertion of the MIA - Georgia Has Not Purchased Torture Equipment
May 19, 2010
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
AI Index: EUR 56/001/2010
10 May 2010
PUBLIC STATEMENT
AI Index: EUR 56/001/2010
10 May 2010
Georgia: Ministry of Internal Affairs misconstrued Amnesty International’s report on exports of policing equipment from EU member states to Georgia Amnesty International rebuts false assertions of the Georgian Ministry of Interior on 30 March1 alleging that the organization published inaccurate information with regard to exports of policing and security equipment from EU member states to Georgia in its report, From Words to Deeds: Making the EU Ban on the trade in ‘tools of torture’ a reality (Index: EUR 01/004/2010).
Amnesty International regrets that the Ministry’s statement has misconstrued Amnesty International’s report in relation to Georgia, which is based upon published statistics by the governments of the Czech Republic and Germany, and the public reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture. Georgia is mentioned twice in Amnesty International’s report. First, the report notes that in 2006 exports were authorized from the Czech Republic of policing/security equipment in a category covering electric-shock devices, combined shackles and chemical substance sprays, to six countries including Georgia. This is based strictly upon statistics supplied by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic itself. Any alleged inaccuracy in these statistics is a matter for the government of the Czech Republic.
As Amnesty International’s report notes, these types of equipment are not contained within the list of equipment prohibited for export by European law, and they can have legitimate law enforcement uses in limited circumstances when their use is regulated in accordance with international human rights obligations and law enforcement best practice standards. However, their export is controlled under European law due to their propensity to be misused in torture and other ill-treatment when such standards are not adequately applied.
Amnesty International’s report makes no accusations about the end-user or use of this equipment, but rather argues that the information provided by the Czech government about these exports from its territory is insufficient to judge whether the Czech authorities have acted with due diligence, given numerous reports of torture and other ill-treatment committed by some law enforcement units in Georgia which could be perpetrated using these types of equipment: for instance, reports of torture involving the use of electric shocks in Georgia. The limited information provided by the Czech government about the end-users and prospective end-use of this equipment made it impossible for the Czech parliament or public to determine whether in all cases the Czech government had adequately undertaken rigorous pre-export risk assessments of its possible misuse, as is required under European law.
In relation to this risk assessment, Amnesty International’s report notes relevant credible reports, published immediately prior to these exports being authorized, about torture and other ill-treatment in a number of these destination countries, including Georgia. Amnesty International’s report cites the 2005 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, which stated that “methods of torture [by law enforcement officials] included beatings with fists, butts of guns and truncheons and the use of electric shocks” (emphasis added), because it constituted the latest available UN reporting about torture in Georgia available to the Czech Government when making its licensing decisions in 2006 about exports of policing and security equipment including electric-shock devices to Georgia.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs has also claimed that Amnesty International has inaccurately quoted the UN Special Rapporteur’s 2005 report on Georgia. This is not the case. Nor did this Special Rapporteur’s report only reveal cases of torture committed before 2005, as the Ministry of InternalAf fairs claims: it noted that “a large number of recent allegations by individuals were also brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur during the course of the [2005] mission, some of whom heint erviewed”; it asserted that “as the Government itself has acknowledged, the practice of torture and ill-treatment persists in the country”; and it raises concerns about ongoing impunity at that time for torture and other ill-treatment. While noting recent positive changes in law and law enforcement/detention practice, the Special Rapporteur’s 2005 report concluded “that torture and illtreatment by law enforcement officials still exists in Georgia.” More recent reports also suggest that despite the improvements and significant steps taken by the Georgian government in this direction, torture and other ill-treatment by law enforcement officials remains an issue of concern in Georgia. Cases of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment also continued to be reported in recent years.9 Secondly, Amnesty International’s report notes a 2007 German media report that German Customs officials had detected unauthorized exports of electric-shock stun devices from Germany to four countries including Georgia. This information was provided to television journalists in an interview with an official from the German Customs Investigations Bureau; the report is no longer available online, but a transcript of the official’s on-camera comments is on file with Amnesty International.10 This detectionwas also confirmed by the German Customs Investigations Bureau to a group of 45 German
parliamentarians who submitted a subsequent German parliamentary resolution on this issue.11 Neither the parliamentarians nor Amnesty International’s report allege that these devices were destined for the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, and indeed it is often in the nature of such illicit exports that the government of the destination country may be equally unaware of the import of the equipment into their territory.
Background:
In 2006 the European Union (EU) introduced the world's first multilateral trade controls to prohibit the international trade in equipment that has no other practical purpose than for capital punishment, torture and other ill-treatment; and to control the trade in a range of policing and security equipment frequently misused for such ill-treatment. Council Regulation 1236/2005 fills a major gap in humanrights- based export controls. It introduced unprecedented, binding trade controls on a range of equipment which is often used in serious human rights violations, but which has not usually been included on Member States' military, dual-use or strategic export control lists.
Three years after its introduction, however, Amnesty International and the Omega Research Foundation have found that the Council Regulation 1236/2005 remains unimplemented or only partly implemented in several EU member states; that traders in some EU member states have continued to offer for sale equipment which is explicitly prohibited for import and export to and from the EU on the grounds that it has no other practical purpose than for torture or other ill-treatment; and that several loopholes in the Regulation continue to allow traders in EU member states to undertake unregulated trading activities in a range of equipment and services that have been used for torture and other illtreatment by military, security and law enforcement personnel around the world. These include spiked batons; metal ‘finger-cuffs’; and electric-shock stun ‘sleeves’ and ‘cuffs’ delivering 50,000-volt shocksto prisoners or detainees.
The report, written jointly by Amnesty International and the Omega Research Foundation, seeks to facilitate and inform an EU-led process currently assessing the implementation and effectiveness of Council Regulation 1236/2005. The report updates a previous Amnesty International/Omega Research Foundation report published in February 2007 (European Union: Stopping the Trade in Tools of Torture).
News
December 13, 2023
Ethnic minorities outside the peace dialogue
November 6, 2023
‘Peace’ agenda of political parties
Popular
Articles
February 13, 2024
Why are Ossetians affected by the conflict unable to regain Georgian citizenship and their property?
