Governments are betraying their promise of a world order based on human rights and are pursuing a dangerous new agenda, said Amnesty International on Wednesday as it launched its annual report.

Speaking at the launch of the Amnesty International Report 2005, the organisation’s Secretary General Irene Khan said: ‘A new agenda is in the making with the language of freedom and justice being used to pursue policies of fear and insecurity.

This includes cynical attempts to redefine and sanitise torture.’

The US administration attempted to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak such as ‘environmental manipulation’, ‘stress positions’ and ‘sensory manipulation’.

It also failed to conduct a full and independent investigation into the appalling torture and ill-treatment of detainees by US soldiers in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and failed to hold senior individuals to account.

Israel’s construction of a barrier inside the occupied West Bank ignored the International Court of Justice opinion that this violated international human rights and humanitarian law.

Despite the holding of elections, Afghanistan slipped into a downward spiral of lawlessness and instability which hampered efforts towards peace.

In Iraq there were gross human rights abuses by US-UK-led forces, including unlawful killings and arbitrary detention.

In the section on Afghanistan the report says: ‘Armed groups across the country consolidated their control over the local population and were responsible for killing civilians, aid workers, election officials and potential voters. By the third quarter of 2004, at least 21 aid workers, mostly Afghan nationals, had been killed.’

The report adds: ‘Evidence emerged that US forces had tortured and ill-treated detainees in the “war on terror” in Afghanistan.

‘Former detainees reported being made to kneel, stand or maintain painful postures for long periods, and being subjected to hooding, sleep deprivation, stripping and humiliation. Suspects were detained without legal authority and held incommunicado, without access to lawyers, families or the courts. . .

‘On 14 October the US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division recommended that 28 US soldiers be charged in connection with the beating to death of two prisoners at the US air base at Bagram in December 2002.

‘Autopsies found “blunt force injuries” on the bodies of Mullah Habibullah and Dilawar. By the end of 2004 only one soldier had been charged with assault, maltreatment and dereliction of duty. . . .

‘Reports continued of civilian deaths as a result of US air strikes.’

In the section on Iraq, the report says: ‘At the end of November a senior US military official announced that 8,300 people were being held by US-led forces in Iraq. These included about 4,600 held in Camp Bucca, about 2,000 in Abu Ghraib, and 1,700 in holding areas in the custody of field commanders.

‘Both Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib remained under the control of US forces after the June handover of power. Some detainees, known as “ghost detainees”, were hidden to prevent the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from visiting them. . .

‘Torture and ill-treatment by US-led forces were widely reported.

‘An ICRC report leaked in February identified several methods of torture and ill-treatment during arrest, internment and interrogation, including: hooding for up to four days; handcuffing that caused skin lesions and nerve damage; beatings with hard objects; threats of execution; solitary confinement; acts of humiliation with detainees being paraded naked; exposure while hooded to loud noise or music; and being forced to remain for long periods in painful “stress” positions. . .

‘In June the UK authorities announced that four members of the Royal Regiment of the Fusiliers would face court martial for abuse of detainees elsewhere in Iraq. . .

‘In February UK officials said that UK forces had been involved in the killing of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, and acknowledged that the figure was not comprehensive.’

The report also cites the beating to death of young hotel worker, Baha Musa, by UK troops.

The section on the United Kingdom records the detention without trial of ‘terror suspects’ at Belmarsh and other high security prisons.

It says: ‘The UK’s highest court ruled that indefinite detention without trial of non-deportable foreign “suspected international terrorists” discriminated against them unjustifiably and was unlawful.

‘Another court held that “evidence” obtained by torture of a third party would be inadmissible only if it had been directly procured by UK agents, or if they had connived in its procurement.

‘The authorities sought to circumvent their obligations under international and domestic human rights law in respect of the conduct of UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘Self-inflicted deaths, self-harm, overcrowding and detention conditions in (UK) prisons were of major concern.

‘Public inquiries into cases of alleged collusion by security forces in killings in Northern Ireland were announced.

‘However, the authorities further delayed the establishment of an inquiry into the killing of Patrick Finucane. . .

‘In October, 12 senior doctors concluded that all the ATCSA (Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) internees they had examined had suffered serious damage to their health. They stated that the indefinite nature of their detention had been a major factor in the deterioration of their mental health and that of their spouses. . .

‘In November, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) expressed concern about: potentially indefinite detention under the ATCSA; the strict detention regime under which some internees were held at Belmarsh prison; and the interpretation of domestic legislation as preventing the use of evidence obtained through torture only if UK officials were complicit. . .

‘The UK authorities continued to play a duplicitous role in the detention – without any legal basis – of UK residents and nationals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in US custody.

‘UK intelligence officers had taken advantage of the legal limbo and the coercive detention conditions at Guantanamo Bay to conduct interrogations and to extract information to use in proceedings under the ATCSA. . .

‘In June the UK authorities acknowledged for the first time that some detainees interrogated by UK intelligence personnel had complained about their treatment, but refused to provide any further details.

At the end of 2004, four UK nationals and at least five UK residents remained in US custody at Guantanamo Bay. These included Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national legally resident in the UK, and Jamil Al-Banna, a Jordanian national with refugee status in the UK.

‘The UK authorities may have played some part in their unlawful rendering to US custody, and refused to make representations on their behalf to the US authorities.’

Commenting on events in the north of Ireland in 2004, the report says: ‘Despite a significant decrease, high levels of paramilitary violence continued, particularly by Loyalist groups. . . .

‘The Independent Monitoring Commission reported that members of Loyalist paramilitary organisations were responsible for a series of violent racist attacks in Belfast.’

On the state of UK prisons, as well as condemning the number of suicides among young women, the report states: ‘In November a public inquiry opened into the killing of Zahid Mubarek by his cellmate, a known racist, at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in March 2000.’

On deaths in police custody, it adds: ‘In April a television broadcast showed Christopher Alder choking to death on the floor of Queen’s Gardens police station in Hull while handcuffed, in 1998.

‘In December, four of the five police officers involved in his death retired on ill-health grounds. A review of the case by the independent police complaints commission was ongoing at the end of 2004. The Alder family demanded an independent public inquiry.

‘In November the verdict of unlawful killing returned by a jury in October 2003 following the inquest into the death of Roger Sylvester in January 1999 was quashed.

On police shootings the report says: ‘In October an inquest jury returned an unlawful killing verdict following a second inquest into the 1999 fatal police shooting of Harry Stanley.

‘Although the prosecuting authorities were still considering whether to charge the officers involved, in December they were allowed to return to work on “non-operational duties”.

‘In December an inquest jury returned a lawful killing verdict following an inquest into the fatal police shooting of Derek Bennett in 2001.’

The report goes on to say the Committee Against Torture ‘expressed concern about “reports of incidents of bullying followed by self-harm and suicide in the armed forces, and the need for full public inquiry into these incidents and adequate preventive measures”.

‘In December, the authorities appointed a human rights lawyer to review four deaths of young soldiers at Deepcut Barracks.’

The Amnesty report expresses concern for the erosion of freedom of expression, citing the case of ‘three coachloads of anti-war protesters who were stopped from reaching the Royal Air Force base at Fairford – used by US B52 bombers to fly to Iraq – and forcibly returned to London in March 2003.

‘The court found that detaining Jane Laporte to forcibly return her to London was unlawful and violated her right to liberty under the European Convention on Human Rights.

‘However, the court found that preventing the coaches from reaching Fairford was lawful, and that, as a result, the police had not violated Jane Laporte’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and expression.’

The report also condemns attacks on refugees and asylum seekers: ‘Legislation further restricted the right to appeal against a refusal to grant asylum, replacing the two-tier immigration appeals system with a single tier.

‘The authorities’ initial decision-making on asylum claims was frequently inadequate. Restrictions on public funds for immigration and asylum work left many asylum applicants without expert legal advice and representation.

‘In May the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that legislation allowing the authorities to deny any support to adult asylum-seekers could not be reconciled with the UK’s international human rights obligations.’