been greater.”
102
Abuses of emergency powers in Northern Ireland were also constrained
by several international actors and organizations, including Amnesty International and
the European Court of Human Rights.
103
When citizens felt their rights had been abused,
they could file complaints with the European Court of Human Rights.
104
After the
internment raid of 1971, the European Commission on Human Rights ruled that the “five
techniques” of interrogation used during internment constituted torture. This ruling
legitimized the complaints of the interned IRA suspects and publicly criticized British
actions. Nongovernmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, also
investigated allegations of abuse in Northern Ireland. In 1978, Amnesty investigated
reports of abuse during the interrogation of suspects. Their report confirmed the abuses
and led the government to form the Bennett Committee, whose recommendations led to
strict controls on interrogation procedures.
105
In 1988, an Amnesty report criticized the
supergrass policy (of relying on informers to convict other suspects) of the early 1980s,
106
while a 1992 report called Britain one of the worst human rights violator in Europe.
107
Caroline Kennedy-Pipe observes that, over time, “the conflict in Ireland, with its
repressive legislation, started to appear increasingly at odds with European opinion and
began to draw condemnation.”
108
The case of Peru, in contrast to the United Kingdom and the United States,
highlights the dangers from using counter-terrorism legislation to undermine the ability
of the media and other organizations to exercise their right to free speech in order to
monitor and publicize abuses of power.
109
Before the campaign against the Sendero
Luminoso, the press in Peru was relatively free and debated a range of policy issues.
While many publications were biased or sensationalistic, others were objective and
informative.
110
Over time, though, the military began to deny or limit access of Peru’s
journalists to the emergency zones.
111
“Both local and foreign journalists who have
traveled [to the emergency zones] report that the military denies access to certain zones
and witnesses.”
112
In 1983, at the start of the counterinsurgency campaign, Amnesty
International expressed concern over the limited press access in a letter to the president.
“[Amnesty International] is concerned at evidence that independent monitoring, reporting
or inquiry into abuses by new media and Peruvian human rights organizations have been
obstructed by intimidation of their representatives through arrests, threats and acts of
102
Paddy Hillyard, “Political and Social Dimensions of Emergency Law in Northern Ireland,” in Anthony
Jennings, ed., Justice Under Fire: The Abuse of Civil Liberties in Northern Ireland, (London: Pluto Press,
1990), p. 208.
103
Hadden, Boyle, and Camp bell, “Emergency Law in Northern Ireland,” p. 22. The British government
ratified the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976.
104
Garnett, “Emergency Powers in Northern Ireland,” p. 64.
105
Tim Pat Coogan, The IRA: A History (Niwot, CO: Robert Rinehart Publishers, 1994), p. 336.
106
Anthony Jennings, Justice Under Fire (London: Pluto Press, 1990), p. xviii.
107
Coogan, The IRA, p. 454.
108
Kennedy-Pipe, Present Troubles in Northern Ireland , p. 113.
109
The following three paragraphs are taken directly from my book, Freeman, Freedom or Security, pp.
168 and 170.
110
Méndez, Human Rights in Peru , p. 45; and Méndez, Tolerating Abuses, p. 55.
111
Méndez, A Certain Passivity, 42 and 43.
112
Méndez, Human Rights in Peru , p. 46; Juan Méndez, A Certain Passivity: Failing to Curb Human
Rights Abuses in Peru (New York: Americas Watch Committee, 1987), p. 4 writes that the military
established “nearly a complete ban on access” to the emergency zones.
Convention