Medical Foundation: Failure to protect Survivors of torture from Algeria

FAILURE TO PROTECT

Survivors of torture from Algeria

By Dr Michael Peel

May 1999

Summary

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in London has been monitoring for several years the reports of torture from its Algerian clients. This paper summarises the experiences described by 70 asylum seekers in the UK on whom medical reports were written between April 1994 and March 1999. These medical reports were written by 11 different Medical Foundation doctors. A report is only written if, in the expert opinion of the doctor, the patient had physical and / or psychological signs that were completely consistent with the history of torture. Of these, two had been attacked by the GIA (Groupe Islamique Armé – Armed Islamic Group) and were claiming asylum because the Algerian authorities had been unwilling and unable to protect them, two had been attacked by the GIA and tortured by the Algerian authorities as well, and the others had been tortured only by the authorities. Several of them also gave a history of harassment by the GIA.

The majority of the group were aged between 25 and 35, although five were aged over 45 when they were first seen at the Medical Foundation. 80% (44) were single. Of those for whom the information was recorded, 47% (26) had been to university. Half described themselves as members or supporters of the FIS (Front Islamique du Salut – Islamic Salvation Front). 60% (41) said they had been detained once, 25% (17) had been detained twice, the others had been detained more times, including three who said they had been detained more than ten times. 41% (61) of the detentions were for three days or less, and only 3% (4) were for more than a year. None of the patients described being detained for more than two years on any one occasion.

All described being punched, slapped, and hit with objects, particularly truncheons. Other methods of torture described included electric shocks (by 19 = 28%), burning (by 11 = 16%), and « chiffon » (by 28 = 41%). This is a torture in which a wedge is put into the mouth allowing the torturers to pour contaminated water into the victim’s stomach until he or she vomits, while at the same time making it almost impossible to breathe. Thirty-two (47%) described sexual abuse including rape.

Forty-one (59%) described suffering from various symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Twenty-nine (41%) were assessed by the doctor to be psychologically disturbed enough to be referred for counselling within the Medical Foundation, including seven who have received inpatient psychiatric treatment in the UK. The psychological effects of being detained and tortured were clearly devastating for many of those seen.

What is also striking is that the history given by those detained in 1998 is no different from that described as having happened previously. People are still being arrested and held in incommunicado detention. It is too early to tell whether there are fewer people being tortured in Algeria, but what is clear is that the methods of torture have not changed since the Algerian War of Independence in the 1950s. The authorities are unable and unwilling to offer protection from terrorists and armed militias. They are not prepared to permit independent human rights investigations by professional monitors from the UN or internationally recognised human rights NGOs. Algeria is therefore not a place to which asylum seekers can safely be returned.

Introduction

« Persecution is normally related to action by the authorities of a country. It may also emanate from sections of the population that do not respect the standards established by the laws of the country concerned. A case in point may be religious intolerance, amounting to persecution, in a country otherwise secular, but where sizeable fractions of the population do not respect the religious beliefs of their neighbours. Where serious discriminatory or other offensive acts are committed by the local populace, they can be considered as persecution if they are knowingly tolerated by the authorities, or if the authorities refuse, or prove unable, to offer effective protection. »

Mr A was a professional sportsman who was out training on his bicycle when a car overtook him and slowed down to have a good look at him. The car drove away, turned back at a roundabout and drove directly at him. He was knocked off his bicycle and broke his legs. The assailants dragged him into their car and questioned him about why he did not behave in a more Islamic manner. The told him that they were from the GIA. They said that he would not be warned again, and kicked his broken leg. He lost consciousness; when he came round he was in a hospital. He had a large incision wound where his throat had been cut. He had been found dumped by the side of the road in an isolated place. He felt that he was very lucky to have survived this but, because of his leg injury, he could not continue his professional career. He said: « The security forces had taken a report from me. I asked them what protection I could get but they said all Algerians need protection including themselves. » He therefore left the country.

Masked men carrying guns broke into the home of Ms B one night. They said that they were from the GIA, and wanted her to give them some information from the records of the company where she worked. On a previous occasion she had reported some harassment from the GIA to the police, who had ignored her complaint and had molested her and the female friend she had gone with. She did not see the point of telling the police this time. A few weeks later she saw some men coming towards her in the street. The next thing that she remembers is coming round in hospital. She had been stabbed with a knife that had perforated her bowel in three places.

Mr C was a civil servant who was promoted to a high profile position in his Ministry. He received a letter from the GIA saying that if he took the job, he would be killed. He knew that two of his colleagues in that role had already been killed in the street. He spoke to his boss, who said that it was their duty to fight the GIA, and would not take him off the project. He then spoke to the police, who said that they did not have the resources to protect him. He went off sick with the stress of the situation, only to be arrested, detained and given electric shocks and made to undergo « chiffon » (see later). After seven months of this he was taken to court accused of collaborating with terrorists. He was sentenced to six months in prison, and released because he had already spent seven months in detention. He then left the country.

Mr D was a businessman who had been arrested by the authorities several times. A few months after one release he was kidnapped by the GIA and forced to work with them for three months. He was made to send threatening letters to other businessmen and to keep accounts of the money they sent in. He often read in the papers of people being killed that he had written to and who had not responded. A few times they made him accompany them on missions to keep records of what had happened, and in one of these he was able to escape from them.

Mr E was arrested by the Algerian authorities and detained in a camp in the desert for more than five months. A few days after his release, three masked man carrying guns burst into his home in the early hours of the morning. He assumed that they were from the GIA. They questioned him about what happened in the camp, and said that he must have co-operated with the authorities in order to be released so soon. He was told that he was being watched and would be killed if he had any further contact with the authorities. He remained in hiding for the next two and a half years, during which time both the police and Islamic militants called frequently at his family home looking for him. He finally thought it was safe to visit his family home, but within hours of arriving there, three masked men burst into the house and stabbed him in the stomach with a bayonet.

Mr F was at home in a village when the GIA raided it, stole vehicles and weapons, and laid mines. A few days later the army came and arrested all the young men. He says: « I was asked why I did not join the militia and I told them that I was scared about my life. They then told me that they were sacrificing themselves for us, and because of their anger, they started beating me up and torturing me, even though they knew I had nothing to do with this. »

Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture was founded in 1986 by a Helen Bamber with a group of doctors and other clinicians who had been working within the UK medical group of Amnesty International. The mandate of the Medical Foundation is to help all survivors of torture and organised violence and their families. As its name suggests, it focuses on treatment. There are currently about 80 paid staff, about half of whom are part time, and an equal number of volunteers. The Medical Foundation has helped more than 16,500 clients since its inception, and saw 2,873 new clients in 1998, from 84 countries.

Clients may be offered a combination of medical treatment, practical help and advice, counselling, individual psychotherapy, family or group therapy, child psychotherapy, physiotherapy and a range of physical therapies. One aspect of the work is to encourage clients to give testimony about what happened to them when they were tortured, and this can be very therapeutic. The work is performed with the help of a team of experienced interpreters. In the last few years the Medical Foundation has become increasingly involved in providing training, consultation and advice to fellow health and human rights workers in the UK and overseas.

Doctors at the Medical Foundation wrote 867 medical reports in 1998, and there were also a further 57 counselling reports. This means that medico-legal reports are written on about 29% of the patients seen at the Medical Foundation. This represents only around 2% of all UK asylum seekers. Documentation of torture is undertaken at the request of legal representatives who may use the report in support of a survivor’s assertion that he or she had been tortured, and is also undertaken to assess needs for further services of the Medical Foundation. However, it also has a psychological benefit for clients who, perhaps for the first time, are able to tell their stories to people who are willing to listen sympathetically to their histories.

Historical background

Algeria was colonised by the French in 1840, and from 1873 France decided to expropriate the land for French settlers who wished to live in the colonies – the pieds-noirs. By 1950 there were over a million of these settlers, monopolising the fertile land. Nationalist resistance grew stronger from the 1920s, and participated in the elections. In 1954 the FLN (Front de Liberation Nationale – National Liberation Front) was founded by those who believed that elections under colonial control were futile, and started an armed rebellion. In order to protect their interests and those of the pieds-noirs, the French authorities deployed more than 500,000 troops and destroyed 8,000 villages. More than a million people died before Algeria became independent in July 1962.

During this eight-year period, the issue of disappearances, torture, and other human rights abuses was brought gradually to the awareness of the French people.

« The news of torture from Algeria, brought first to France by those returning from military service – particularly, as Sartre notes, by returning priests, and later by scholars and political officers . . . – was widely circulated in several key books, most strikingly in Henri Alleg’s La Question, with an anguished essay by Sartre in 1958. »

In 1955 a civil servant was commissioned to write a report on the use of torture in Algeria, which ended up expressing more sympathy for the perpetrators than the victims. In La Vrai Battaille d’Algiers (1971), General Massu, who in 1957 was the French commander during the Battle of Algiers, answered past criticism by saying:

« I have no fear of the word [torture]. But I think that in the majority of cases, the French military obligated to use it and conquer the terrorism were, and happily! ‘choir boys’ in relation to the use that the fellagas [Arabs] made of it. »

At one point, Massu explained that with the necessity to obtain from terrorists « urgent operational information on which the lives of innocent beings depended, it was a consequent necessity to ‘knock them about a bit . . . to make them spit it out’. »

In response, Sartre writes that many of those tortured by the French were not terrorists, and the army knew that they were not terrorists. In addition:

« The majority [of those] tortured say nothing because they have nothing to say unless, to avoid torture, they agree to bear false witness or confess to a crime that they have not committed. As for those who do have something to say, we know very well that they do not talk. »

The torture itself was best described by Henri Alleg himself, a French journalist in Algeria whose paper was banned in 1955. He went into hiding, but was arrested by French Paratroops in June 1957 and detained incommunicado for a month, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. He smuggled his account out of the internment camp in which he was subsequently held. He gives a graphic account of his torture, including being given electric shock treatment many times. In this extract he describes the experience of being subjected to « chiffon »:

« Lo_ fixed a rubber tube to the metal tap which shone just above my face. He wrapped my head in a rag, while De_ said to him: ‘put a wedge in his mouth’. With the rag already over my face, Lo_ held my nose. . . And he turned on the tap. The rag was soaked rapidly. Water flowed everywhere: in my mouth, in my nose, all over my face. . . But I couldn’t hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. . . In the gloom I saw . . . the captain who . . . was hitting my stomach with his fist to make me throw up the water I had swallowed. »

After independence in 1962, more than 600,000 French nationals returned to France, taking their wealth with them, to be replaced by 500,000 poor Algerians who had been living in France. There was widespread nationalisation, but the government had little administrative experience. A coup in 1965 centralised state power and control even further. There was steady economic expansion based on the export of oil and natural gas from the south of the country, which has represented 96% of foreign earnings. However, the FLN retained control over all aspects of the country.

In October 1988, a wave of protests broke out due the declining economic situation caused by falling production in industry and agriculture, and rising foreign debt. There was lack of water and basic consumer goods in the towns and cities. Among the main groups participating in the protests were Muslim fundamentalists, and some mosques became the site of political demonstrations. In mid-1989 the president presented a new constitution which allowed a modified multiparty system for the first time. The FIS was based in the Islamic infrastructure of the mosques and other religious organisations. It advocated social justice, and set up local welfare schemes. It quickly became the best supported opposition movement. In the municipal elections in June 1990, the FIS defeated the FLN. This led to an increase in protests by the FIS, particularly that the legislative and presidential elections should be brought forward.

In June 1991, the Prime Minister resigned and a State of Siege was declared throughout Algeria. The elections were rescheduled for later that year, and the FIS suspended its campaign of agitation. In the December 1991 elections, only 60% of the electorate voted, and the FIS won the first round with just over 40% of the votes cast. The FFS (Front des Forces Socialistes – Socialist Forces Front), a secular party dominated by Berbers, came second in front of the FLN. Anti-fundamentalists called a massive demonstration, led by Trade Unionists and the FFS, and supported by intellectuals, professionals and women. The President resigned and was replaced by a State Security Panel that was dominated by the military. The next stage of the elections was suspended, and all FIS leaders who had not gone into hiding were subsequently arrested.

In February 1992, a state of emergency was declared, and the following month the FIS was dissolved. The government dissolved all the city and town councils that had been won by the FIS in June 1990. The violence of both factions, government and Muslim fundamentalists, kept rising, and in September the government decreed a number of « anti-terrorist » measures, including the extension of the death penalty.

In November 1994 attempts by Western governments to help reach an agreement failed. In January 1995, the follow-up conference in Rome involving the FLN, FFS, and the FIS and other moderate Muslim groups came to an agreement, which, however, the military-dominated government did not accept: proposals to end the violence, release political prisoners, and form a government of national unity. By this stage, observers estimated that there the death toll was more than 40,000 people, including 80 foreigners. Summary executions and « disappearances » were being committed by both sides, and the government refused to allow investigations by human rights organisations into allegations of torture. There were a number of large detention camps in the Sahara Desert, although the government announced that they closed the last of these in 1995.

In 1996 the GIA split into rival factions. The largest kept the name and is the best organised, and it includes many veterans of the war in Afghanistan. The other main group is the AIS (Armée Islamique du Salut – Islamic Salvation Army (AIS), which sees itself as the armed wing of the FIS, and has declared a unilateral cease-fire. The fragmentation of the GIA has complicated the work of the anti-terrorist forces, and makes it harder to be sure exactly which group has committed any individual atrocity. The more extreme groups have announced a fatwa against those they considered to be enemies of Islam and those consorting with them, stating that divine law allowed them to expropriate their belongings and abduct their women.

Since 1992 the authorities have regularly referred to 2,000 to 3,000 terrorists in arms. But the only reliable figures come from the Ministry of Justice. In 1995, 18,000 prisoners, i.e. half the prison population, were serving sentences for crimes related to terrorism.

Current human rights situation

Algeria’s human rights emergency provoked more international concern and diplomatic activity during 1998 than at any time since the violence became endemic in 1992. Domestic and international outrage was directed at government abuses, at the GIA, and at the security forces’ failure to protect civilians.

« The security forces committed extrajuducial executions, were responsible for numerous disappearances, routinely tortured or otherwise abused detainees, and arbitrarily arrested and detained or held incommunicado many individuals suspected of involvement with armed Islamist groups. »

« In other incidents, terrorists specifically targeted their victims as instruments of the State or as individuals whose lifestyles they considered in conflict with Islamic values. »

It has been estimated that as many as 7,000 civilians, terrorists and security forces died in 1998, and that as many as 77,000 have died in the seven years of civil war. There were numerous massacres in the year widely attributed to the GIA. However, there were many suggestions of pro-government militias being involved in some atrocities attributed to Islamic groups. Two mayors were arrested on charges of murdering, kidnapping and extortion while leading militias. One was said to have been stopped at a police roadblock and a kidnap victim found in the boot of his car. However, both were released in April 1998 and no further action has been taken.

« On the night of 22-23 September 1997, more than 200 people, including many children, were massacred in the village of Bentalha, a few kilometres south of Algiers. Bentalha is near five different army and security forces outposts. Two main army barracks are just a few kilometres away and several security posts are only a few hundred metres away. Survivors said that at the time of the massacre armed forces units with armoured vehicles were stationed outside the village – just a few hundred metres from the place where the massacre was taking place. They did not intervene to stop the killings or arrest the perpetrators, who were able to leave undisturbed. The killers spent several hours in Bentalha; they slaughtered, decapitated and mutilated men, women and children. »

Prison conditions are poor, and prisons are very overcrowded. Medical treatment for prisoners is available, but is severely limited. The police are said to use torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment regularly against detainees. Courts routinely ignore allegations by defendants that their confessions were extracted under torture. The government have regularly stated publicly that they would punish those persons who practised torture, but they have never provided any verifiable details of individuals accused of torture being investigated and prosecuted.,

At its 1998 session, the UN Human Rights Committee considered Algeria’s second periodic report as submitted under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In response, the United States and the European Union requested that the Algerian Government accept visits by the UN Special Rapporteurs on torture and on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, as they have been requested to do by the UN Commission on Human Rights. In its concluding comments, the Committee’s recommendations were, amongst others, that the Algerian Government should ensure that:

    • a credible system for monitoring treatment of all detainees exists so that they are not subject to torture or ill-treatment
    • nobody may be arrested or detained « outside the law »
    • access is given, as soon as possible, to the International Committee of the Red Cross and to other independent observers

Following a visit by a troika of junior foreign ministers from the European Union, the Commission « regretted » that Algeria « felt unable to provide unhindered access for international organisations, NGOs and the media ».

The one group allowed by the Algerian Government to visit the country was the UN Panel of Eminent Persons, following an initiative by the Secretary-General, in July – August 1998. The mission was seen as complementary to, but separate from, the special procedures of the UN human rights programme. That is to say, it was not a substitute for visits by the UN Special Rapporteurs. The Panel did not have the means or the mandate to conduct a human rights investigation.

In their report the Panel note that information was received of numerous cases of arbitrary detention, torture, extrajudicial executions and lack of protection by the judiciary. Information was provided of judges ignoring credible evidence of torture of individuals in police custody. The Government denied these allegations. In their concluding observations, the Panel stated that efforts to combat terrorism must take place within the framework of legality, proportionality, and respect for the fundamental human rights of the population.

President Zeroual was due to remain in post until 2000, but he announced in September 1998 that he would stand down after multiparty elections were scheduled in April 1999. He was said to have disagreed with the army chief of staff, to the extent that he more or less accused the army of sponsoring death squads that were carrying out massacres officially ascribed to Islamic « terrorists ». In the event, six of the seven candidates withdrew the day before the election, accusing the military of electoral fraud in favour of their own candidate, Abdelaziz Bouteflika. This robbed the elections of their last vestige of credibility. Mr Bouteflika promised that he would take office only if the polls delivered a decisive majority from a high turnout. Official figures show that just over 60% of the electorate voted, and that around three quarters of those voted for Mr Bouteflika. Opposition politicians have said that the results were much lower than this.

Patients studied

Seventy Algerians were referred to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture between April 1994 and March 1999, on all of whom medical reports were subsequently written by Medical Foundation doctors. Of these 70, two said that they had been attacked only by the GIA, and two had been attacked by the GIA and also detained and tortured by the Algerian authorities. Their stories are amongst those listed in the Introduction. The other 66 said that they had been detained and tortured by the authorities. Several also described being harassed by the GIA including the other two histories listed above. The patients come from a wide range of backgrounds, and it is highly unlikely that they could have colluded. However, many consistent patterns emerge, and the existence of such a pattern is supported by reports from other agencies, such as those listed in the footnotes.

This study is based on the records of those 70. Of these, 67 were male and three were female. The ages and marital status of the group are as follows:

 

Age group

Number

20-24

1

25-29

17

30-34

26

35-39

11

40-44

8

45+

5

n/a

2

Total

70

Marital status

Number

Single

44

Married, accompanied by spouse

2

Married, left family behind

9

n/a

15

Total

70

Of the 55 for whom educational level was recorded, five had studied to postgraduate level, a further 21 had attended university, six had studied further education, and 23 had finished their education after secondary school.

Of the 57 for whom principal occupation was listed:

18 were professionals
17 were skilled craftsmen
8 described themselves as small businesspeople or traders
3 were unskilled labourers
9 had been in full-time education when they were arrested
2 had never been able to work since leaving education

Thirty-four of the patients described themselves as members or supporters of the FIS. Two were Berbers, and one said that he was a member of the Socialist party. The other 31 said that they had no political, ethnic or religious affiliation.

Detentions

The number of detentions of the 68 who said they had been detained by the authorities was as follows:

Number of detentions

Number

One

41 (60%)

Two

17 (25%)

Three

4 (6%)

Four

1 (1%)

Five

2 (3%)

More

3 (4%)

Total

68 patients

The majority of the detentions were relatively short, 55% being for ten days or less. However, this reflects the fact that a few of the patients had been detained briefly on a number of occasions. 10% were detained for more than 6 months, but none was detained for more than two years.

The lengths of the detentions were:

Length

Each detention

Up to 3 days

61 (41%)

4-10 days

20 (14%)

11-30 days

26 (18%)

1-3 months

17 (11%)

4-6 months

9 (6%)

7-12 months

10 (7%)

1-2 years

4 (3%)

Total

147 detentions

Not all detentions are shown on the graph below. The patients who had been detained many times could not give exact dates for all their detentions. Additionally, one of the patients had been detained for the first time in 1978 and one in 1983. 25% of the detentions were in 1992, including three patients who were detained twice that year. Thus 23 of the 68 patients (34%) had been detained that year.

Eight of the patients spent more than a year between leaving Algeria and arriving in the UK, and gave a story of settling elsewhere before moving on. Some said they were harassed by people they perceived to be agents of the Algerian authorities. Others said they had failed in asylum applications in countries other than the UK. None of them had been able to have their injuries and their psychological state documented elsewhere. Many had come directly to the UK. For most of the patients this information was not available. Only six came to the Medical Foundation within three months of arriving in the UK, and seven had been in the UK for more than four years before they were referred. The average period of time from arrival in the UK to being seen at the Medical Foundation was 1.7 years. The main reason for these delays was that many solicitors did not refer the patient to the Medical Foundation until after the initial refusal of asylum, and often at a much later stage in the asylum process. The average period from leaving detention to being seen at the Medical Foundation was just under three years, although eight patients were seen within a year of leaving detention.

It is therefore impossible to say from these 70 cases whether the drop in patients saying that they have been tortured in 1997 and 1998 is a genuine reduction in the number of people being arrested, or a reflection of the delay in people reaching the UK and subsequently coming to the Medical Foundation.

Ill-treatment and torture

The general conditions described by the patients were all of dark, dirty, overcrowded cells with little or no bedding. Often there was no access to toilet facilities, and the detainees had to use the cell, adding to the mess and the smell. Food was brought irregularly and was of poor quality. Prolonged periods of solitary confinement were not uncommon, especially early in the detention. Relatives and legal representatives were harassed to discourage them from visiting. The conditions generally were clearly in breach of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Seven men described periods of several months up to 18 months in the desert camps, although the most recently detained in one was released from it early in 1996. The commonest description of these camps was that they were « like refugee camps ». The men were held in a very hot climate in overcrowded tented accommodation, with limited access to water.

All 68 who had been detained by the authorities described being beaten by them. One said that he was a relative of a senior police officer and so he was « not beaten severely », but even he had been kicked, punched, slapped, and hit with truncheons.

The degree of ill-treatment described was not related to the length of the detention. Some described severe torture in a detention of only a few days, others described prolonged periods of detention with relatively short periods of interrogation and torture breaking up longer periods in which they were not assaulted. Nineteen (28%) described being given electric shocks, and 11 (16%) described being burnt, with blowtorches, heated metal bars, domestic irons, and cigarettes. Twenty-eight (41%) described variations on the same « chiffon » torture by which Henri Alleg was tortured thirty years before. Two others told of repeatedly being pushed head first into containers of contaminated water and being held there until they almost lost consciousness. Eight (12%) described being tied to the top of a ladder which was then pushed over, battering their faces.

Both of the women described being sexually assaulted by their male guards, and one told of being raped repeatedly. Of the 66 men who had been detained by the authorities, 30 (45%) had been sexually assaulted, and two others described the humiliation of being kept naked in their cells and taunted by policemen. Sixteen men told of being given electric shocks to their penis, or having it pulled or hit with sticks. Eight of them described having their penis put into a heavy desk drawer that was then slammed shut on it. Seventeen of the men described having objects pushed through their anus. Eleven of them told of being made to « sit on a bottle ». In this, the neck of a soft drink bottle or a wine bottle is pushed through the anus, and the man was made to put his weight onto the bottle, forcing his anus open and the bottle into his rectum. One man told of fighting the policemen off when they tried to push the bottle through his anus, sustaining a fractured clavicle in the ensuing fracas. Four of the men had been anally raped by the guards, and one had been forced to have oral sex as well.

Medical reports

Medical reports were written on all 70 of the patients comprising this study. As stated above, this means that, in the expert opinion of the doctor concerned, there was a reasonable degree of likelihood that the physical and psychological signs were caused in the way that the patient described. However, a person with no signs may also have been tortured.

Twenty-five (36%) of the patients had a substantial amount of scarring on their bodies, including individual scars and a pattern of scarring that was unlikely to have been caused other than as the patient described. Thus the torturers were not concerned about subsequent accusations of torture, or a claim that any confession used in court was made under torture. Twenty-three (33%) had some scarring that was still considered significant by the doctor writing the report. Six (9%) had one scar, for example a burn scar, that was sufficiently distinctive either in itself or in combination with the overall presentation of the patient for the doctor to write a report. Eleven (16%) had no significant scarring or other relevant physical signs, but the doctor considered that the psychiatric or psychological state of the individual in itself was sufficient evidence to warrant writing a report documenting the history of torture. For the other five there was no record of the extent of scarring.

Forty-one (59%) of the patients each described suffering from a range of psychological symptoms. These included insomnia and nightmares, intrusive memories of being detained and assaulted, recurrent headaches, difficulties with memory and concentration, and feeling frightened after specific stimuli such as unexpected noises, sirens, or seeing men in uniform. Often this led to behaviour patterns to avoid such stimuli, such as taking long detours when out walking so as not to walk past police stations. They often described being withdrawn, easily upset, and irritable. Many were suffering from anxiety and depression. Some had discussed these symptoms with their GP and had received treatment, and sometimes support from a local mental health team.

These are the symptoms of the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There is no specific post-torture syndrome, and it is impossible to give a precise cause for someone suffering from the symptoms of PTSD. Most asylum seekers will have experienced events prior to detention such as family or friends being killed or having to flee their homes, and also events subsequent to detention in Algeria such as arriving in a strange country with no support, or being disbelieved by the authorities here. All these events will accumulate to cause the psychological symptoms, and those in distress need help irrespective of the exact cause. However, having been detained and ill-treated in Algeria will play a large part in the pattern, and can be documented as such.

Seventeen (24%) of the patients described sleep disturbances plus one or two others of the above symptoms, but not the whole pattern. Seven (10%) described only the insomnia and nightmares. Four (6%) said that they did not have any psychological symptoms. For the other one there was no record of the psychological state.

Those who described being sexually assaulted had no higher prevalence of severe symptoms than those who did not, although all of them suffered from sleep problems and at least some other symptoms. However, of the five who gave a history of being raped, four (80%) described severe psychological symptoms.

What is remarkable is that such a high proportion of the patients are describing such severe symptoms. In a traumatised society such as Algeria it is probable that the prevalence of post-traumatic stress symptoms is relatively high, but it is extremely unlikely that more than half of the population suffer from them. Twenty-nine (41%) of these patients were considered by the examining doctor to be sufficiently distressed to be referred for counselling or psychotherapy within the Medical Foundation. A further two were offered counselling but declined the opportunity. There has been no systematic study of the referral rate in the Medical Foundation by report writing doctors to our counselling services, but an initial assessment would suggest the rate is between 15% and 20%. Thus patients from Algeria have about twice the prevalence of significant psychological distress, assessed by this indicator. Seven (10%) required admission to a psychiatric hospital in the UK because of their symptoms, only two of whom gave a history of treatment for psychiatric illness before their first arrest in Algeria.

Case studies

Mr G

Mr G grew up in a very religious family and was involved in welfare work for the mosque and the FIS. In September 1993 masked soldiers broke into his home in the early hours of the morning, beat up his ten-year-old brother, and took him to the police headquarters. He was held there for about a month before being transferred to a prison. During this month he was beaten severely, subjected to « chiffon », suspended over a sewage outflow, sexually abused, and he saw friends and colleagues dying from their torture. In the words of his solicitor:

« Mr G was taken to the police headquarters in Algiers. He was kept there for about a month . . . For the first 17 days he was hung by his wrists against a wall without clothes. He was given no food, a little dirty water, and not allowed to sleep. He was kept in the basement of the police station in a small room that was damp, cold and dirty. The Chief of Police . . . would sometimes visit him to ask ‘are you still alive?' »

On examination at the Medical Foundation, Mr G had a number of scars from wounds that had become infected because of the unhygienic nature of his detention, as well as characteristic scars from the handcuffs cutting into his wrists when he was suspended. He described a number of psychological symptoms, and they were supported by his demeanour during the interview.

Mr H

Mr H was the imam of a mosque. In January 1992 he was arrested because he had been painting slogans on walls. He was beaten severely for two days, then taken to court. His arms and face were swollen and bruised, but the judge took no notice. He was sentenced to a year in prison, and spent half of that time in the prison hospital because of his injuries. Two months after he was released he was taken back to the prison and held for a further four months in solitary confinement, with no access to washing facilities at all during this period. During this time he was taken to court on several occasions, but he was released because there was no evidence against him. About a month later he was arrested again and was asked about many people the authorities suspected of involvement with the FIS, many of whom have since died. He was tied to a ladder that was pushed over, and suspended upside down in a barrel full of dirty water. He was shown people being tortured, some nearly dead. However, as his medical report says, for him the worst torture was the sexual abuse:

« Mr H was naked, even though it was very cold in the prison, and he was permanently handcuffed. Policemen would come into his cell almost continually to beat him. On a number of occasions a group of men would come into his cell, rape him repeatedly in turn, verbally abuse him and pass urine and defecate over him. Mr H found this treatment devastating, and wanted to die. »

Mr H was quite distressed talking about this at the Medical Foundation. Like Mr G, he had scarring from wounds that became infected in detention, and characteristic handcuff marks on his wrists, particularly from his first detention.

Mr I

As a teenager, Mr I was involved in his local mosque, and joined the FIS as soon as it was founded as a legal party. He was an FIS observer in the December 1991 elections, and supported colleagues who were arrested after the party was banned. He was arrested for the first time in December 1992 and held for ten days, and for the first six he was suspended in a container of cold water while handcuffed to the wall. He was arrested when police and soldiers broke into his home in the early hours of the morning in September 1993. Initially he was questioned, beaten, and subjected to « chiffon ». What happened next is described by his solicitor.

« On one occasion, he recalls being tied to a chair and because he was refusing to talk the police brought in his 13-year-old sister. He was told that as he was not complying with their requests for FIS information, they would harm her. They began to sexually abuse and to rape his sister in front of him. . . Mr I begged the police to let his sister go, saying he would answer their questions. She was taken away but he could still hear her in another room close by, she was screaming and Mr I believes that the police were raping her. After the incident with his sister, he confessed to anything that they asked. »

He continued to be questioned and ill-treated for another week or so. A rifle barrel was pushed through his anus. He was tied to a ladder that was pushed over on several occasions. He was made to drink sewage water. He was then transferred to a prison where he spent almost a year. He escaped when he was being transferred to another prison and the vehicle in which he was travelling with many other detainees was attacked by armed men.

Mr I was initially referred to the Medical Foundation for counselling, because he was suffering from many psychological symptoms, and the medical report was written in conjunction with the counsellor.

Mr J

Mr J had sympathised with the FIS, but had never been a member. In the words of his statement:

« It was in February 1998 whilst I was driving my car . . . a group of armed terrorists stopped me. . . The next day . . . I had a visit from the Gendarme who came to my house and arrested me and took me to the police station. There they questioned me about my car which had been used by the terrorists for their activities. I told them the truth . . . The Gendarme then blindfolded me and took me to a place unknown to me that I believe to be underground. . . They stripped me bare and took my blindfold off and the 2 men who I believed specialised in torture held me and put my head in a bucket of water continuously. They were asking me if I was a member of the GIA. Around half an hour later they took me to my cell. After a few hours they came to collect me again. This time they put me on a ladder and tied my arms and legs to this ladder. . . By rotating the ladder to the ground my shoulder was broken with both my elbows and I sustained severe facial injuries. »

Following this incident he spent three weeks in another prison before his family arranged his release. He then went to a civilian hospital where he was told that the medical treatment he had received in detention had been incorrect. When he was seen at the Medical Foundation, Mr J had injuries completely consistent with this story.

Mr K

Mr K had supported the FIS, but had not been involved in any demonstrations because his health was poor and he had suffered from asthma since childhood. His friends had been on demonstrations, and several had been arrested. He thinks that it was because of this that he was arrested in June 1995. He was held in an overcrowded cell for about four months and was beaten regularly. However, he says that the ill-treatment then was « nothing » compared to what happened to him in 1998. On that occasion, in the words of his medical report:

« In September 1998 he was again arrested from home in the night and taken to the police station. There he was questioned and assaulted. He was tied to a chair and given electric shocks to his fingers, toes, ears and genitals. He was suspended upside down from a ladder and beaten. He was subjected to « chiffon », in which a cloth was stuffed into his mouth and liquid poured on so that he could not help but swallow it. He also inhaled some, which aggravated his asthma. His stomach became painfully full, then a policeman would kick him in the abdomen until he vomited. In between these interrogations, Mr K was held in a small dark room by himself. There was no bedding, just a container in the corner to use as a toilet. He was brought a little bread and water once a day. He was held for about four months and was questioned and assaulted in this way throughout his detention. »

Mr K was seen at the Medical Foundation about four months after this release, and he still had the signs of relatively recent beatings that were of a pattern that must have been inflicted deliberately. He had been suffering from neck problems because of his beatings and suspension, and he was referred for physiotherapy at the Medical Foundation.

Mr L

Mr L had helped the FIS at a low level, mostly putting up posters. He was detained by the Algerian police in 1992, but not ill treated, and had to report regularly to the police station. He fled Algeria in 1993 both to avoid being conscripted into military service, and because the Islamists had noticed his regular visits to the police station. In 1996 he was refouled to Algeria from a British detention centre where he had recently been examined by medical staff, who found no scars on his arms or back. Upon forcible return to Algeria, he was questioned for about seven days about his activities outside Algeria, and particularly about contacts with Islamist groups. He told the truth about everything that he had done, including that he had not had any contacts with any groups in Europe. He was then kept in a small, dark, damp, bare cell for three months. He was then questioned again for four or five hours, and told the truth again about what had happened, but he felt that he had not been believed. In the words of his medical report:

« Some two or three days later he was taken to a basement, a very dark place. A large room which was really a basement hall and he knew it was a torture chamber. . . Initially he was handcuffed behind him with metal cuffs and he was told that they were self-tightening cuffs and if he moved they would tighten on him. He was placed on a metal chair which had its legs fixed to the floor. His legs were restrained to the chair with leg cuffs like leg chains but again were self tightening. . . One person, an Algerian, came towards him holding a ‘scalpel’, some sort of surgical knife but rather bigger and stronger than a scalpel. Mr L has drawn me a picture which looks like an English ‘cut-throat razor’ but only the actual blade present. . . One [interrogator] with the razor started cutting his left hand and moving the razor up the arm to his shoulder saying ‘tell the truth, tell the truth’, each time he was cut he was told to tell the truth. He felt the razor cut him to the bone. . . His leg cuffs were removed and one man stood in front of him and one stood behind and cut his back. The pain was very severe . . . He could feel the blood pouring down his back. They said to him that ‘the blood was for him to remember, these injuries will remain and you will have them for the rest of your life, there will be no treatment from doctors here’. Again he was conscious of blood all over the floor and again back in his cell the cuts were very painful. »

Mr L escaped when the vehicle in which he was being transferred to a different detention centre was attacked, and he was able to flee to the UK. He was seen soon after arriving, and was documented as having very many deep, untreated scars on both arms and on his back. They had not been present when he left the UK. They were completely consistent with his story, they must have been created deliberately, and could not have been self-inflicted.

Discussion

In their response to allegations of systematic torture, the Algerian Government has made three main defences. First, the human rights abuses are not systematic, but are an understandable, if unacceptable, response to violations carried out by terrorists to the family, friends and colleagues of policemen and soldiers.

The second argument used by the Algerian authorities to justify torture is that it is the only way to gain the necessary information to avoid further atrocities by the GIA.

The third defence is that, although there have been abuses in the past, these have been stopped.

It is difficult to see how the treatment of Mr G can be explained as an angry or emotional outburst. If the sexual abuse, for example of Mr H and the sister of Mr I, is caused by policemen and soldiers overreacting, should not their superiors have better systems in place to prevent it? If all the torture happening in Algeria is caused by loss of temper, why is there electric shock apparatus? Why not remove the old desks with heavy drawers? Why are more than two fifths subjected to « chiffon », which requires equipment and needs several security agents to work together to administer it?

It is unclear how the information gained in these cases will be of any use to the Algerian authorities. Few if any of the patients in this study had any involvement with the GIA, and most were as afraid of them as they were of the authorities. In the case of Mr I, what sort of information justified raping a 13-year-old girl? Similar questions can be posed in each of the other cases.

The remarks of Sartre quoted earlier continue a long tradition questioning the value of information gained in this way. At the end of the fourth century, St Augustine wrote:

« What shall I say of torture applied to the accused himself? He is tortured to discover whether he is guilty, so that, though innocent, he suffers most undoubted punishment for crime that is still doubtful, not because it is proved that he committed it, but because it is not ascertained that he did not commit it. Thus the ignorance of the judge frequently involves an innocent person in suffering. And what is still more unendurable – a thing indeed to be bewailed, and, if that were possible, watered with fountains of tears – is this, that when the judge puts the accused to the question [agrees to his being tortured], that he may not unwittingly put an innocent man to death, the result of this lamentable ignorance is that this very person, whom he tortured that he might not condemn him if innocent, is condemned to death both tortured and innocent. For if he has chosen, in obedience to the philosophical instructions to the wise man, to quit this life rather than to endure any longer such tortures, he declares that he has committed the crime which he has not in fact committed. And when he has been condemned and put to death, the judge is still in ignorance of whether he has put to death an innocent or guilty person. »

How do the Algerian Government respond to Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which they signed on 12 September 1989:

  1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
  2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

The torture documented in the cases cited above and in this study as a whole is not the result of sudden emotional outbursts. It demonstrates sustained, planned, and repeated abuse and humiliation. The Algerian authorities have not stopped torturing their detainees. There is a systematic abuse of power by the security services.

Could this sort of torture happen other than in a state where the authorities have complete impunity? Why does the government at the most senior level obstruct all attempts to investigate allegations of torture by the appropriate international bodies, such as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Amnesty International?

If a person is suspected to be a terrorist, he or she has a right to a fair and open trial. A confession claimed to have been made under torture is inadmissible as evidence. Any punishment must be legitimate, must have been ordered by a court, and cannot be given by the authorities because of a mere suspicion of involvement with terrorists.

There is a series of agreed international mechanisms by which States confirm that they are observing the rights of the people within their jurisdiction, both through internal and external inspections. The Algerian authorities are obstructing all investigations of allegations of human rights abuses within their territory, so it is impossible to know if any individual would be safe if refouled there.

« In other instances, asylum seekers have been denied refugee status on the grounds that only states (rather than non-state actors such as warlords, rebel movements and unofficial militias) can be agents of persecution. Most commonly of all, the industrialised countries have tended to insist that asylum seekers must demonstrate that they have been singled out for persecution if they are to be granted refugee status, and have used this principle to deny recognition to claimants originating from countries that are affected by more general forms of violence. As UNHCR have pointed out before, the drafters of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention did not intend the refugee definition to be interpreted in this restrictive manner. »

The Medical Foundation believes that failed asylum-seekers cannot be returned safely to Algeria. As quoted above, the US Department of State says that the Algerian authorities routinely torture or otherwise abuse detainees . . . suspected of involvement with armed Islamist groups. The case of Mr L suggests that anyone returning to Algeria who is perceived by the authorities as having had any involvement with any Islamic organisation is likely to be questioned and, if he or she denies such involvement, will be tortured.

People are still being arrested by the authorities in Algeria, held in incommunicado detention, and tortured there. It is too early to tell whether there are fewer people being tortured in Algeria than in recent years, but what is clear is that the methods of torture have not changed since the 1950s. The authorities are unable and unwilling to offer protection from terrorists and armed militias. They are not prepared to permit independent investigations of allegations of human rights abuses. Algeria is therefore not a place to which asylum seekers can safely be returned.

 

zurück / retour (Torture)

Infomappe 9