Euro MP calls for Guantanamo Bay to be shut down and an end to military trials

6.50.25pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 5th Apr 2006

Liz Lynne, Lib Dem MEP for the West Midlands and member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, today asked the European Council to oppose military trials at Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and called for the camp itself to be closed.

In a question to the Council in the European Parliament, Liz Lynne argued that military trials by so-called "Military Commissions" at the camp violate international standards and make it impossible for defendants to receive a fair trial. She asked the Council to join calls for military trials to be abolished.

Around 500 men and women of around 35 nationalities continue to be held at the camp. A UN report published in February found that detainees had been illegally tortured, and called for the camp to be closed.

Speaking in Strasbourg today, Liz Lynne said:

"The US is obliged under international law to respect fundamental rights and observe due legal process. It must shut down the military commissions and close Guantanamo Bay immediately. The detainees must either face a fair trial, or be released without further delay."

"These so-called "Military Commissions" violate international fair trial standards. They are not independent of the executive, they admit secret evidence that is withheld from the defendant, they admit statements obtained through torture and they do not grant independent appeals."

"Under such conditions, how on earth is it possible for the defendant to be assured of a fair trial?"

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1. Military Commissions do not grant independent appeals. Appeals lie within the jurisdiction of the military review board instead of civilian courts, with ultimate appeal to the Secretary of Defence and possibly the President. In this system, the President acts as judge, jury, and prosecutor.

2. In military trials, defendant and his lawyer are not permitted to see classified or "protected" evidence. This creates a challenge for the defendant to confront the evidence against him.

3. Evidence gained through torture can be used against the defendant. This goes against the Convention Against Torture.