A speech by Eric Avebury in Bahrain given in 2002.

1. Speechesin Bahrain
What are human rights?
When I was first elected to Parliament41 years ago,I had the idea ofdoing something
to improve the civil liberties ofmy country.Icould see many things that were wrong,
and needing to be corrected by changes in the law,and in the administrative practices
ofgovernment. We still had the death penalty;there was discrimination against the
Roman Catholic minority in Northern Ireland;there was no remedy for prisoners who
were ill-treated in ourjails;racial discrimination and race hatred were notprohibited
by law,nor were there any mechanisms for securing genderequality.There was no
authorityto whom complaintsofmisconduct bythe police could be made;no tribunal
dealing with cases ofunfair dismissal,nowhere to complain ofmaladministration by
public bodies.So in 1962 IJoined the Parliamentary CivilLiberties Group,a forum in
which issues ofthis kind were dealt with and urged on the Government ofthe day,
and in 1962 I succeeded the previous chairman,Anthony Greenwood,when he
became Minister ofHousing and Local Government in Harold Wilson's
administration. Thatpost I retained for the remainderofmytime in the Commons,
and at thattime we had a close working relationship with the National Council for
Civil Liberties,and NGO with the same objectives.The General Secretary until 1968
was agreat man named Martin Ennals,who went on to become Secretary-Generalof
Amnesty International.
After Martin wentto Amnesty International in 1968 he used to tell me that I should
widen my horizons and think about human rights in the restofthe world,but I always
replied thatthere was enough to do at home.There was also the problem that my
constituency had always been strongly Conservative until I won it in 1962,and the
Toriesput a great deal ofwork into getting it back.I had to concentrate on the
everydayissuesthatwere ofmostinterest to myvoters;foreign affairsin general,and
human rights in particular,weren'tatthe top oftheir agenda. I did speak
occasionally on majorforeign issues such asthe Cuban missile crisis in 1962,the
Vietnam war,or the unilateral declaration ofindependence by the Smithregime in
Rhodesia in 1965,but hardly wentabroad at all during the 8 years I wasin the
Commons.
In 1970Ilost to the Tories,and forthe next year,made a living outside politics, asa
consultantto firmsin the computing,engineering and pharmaceutical industries.Then
in 1971 mycousin died,and 1 inherited the peerage,which in those days meant the
rightto sit in the HouseofLords.(As you mayknow,all but92ofthe hereditary
peers were sweptawayby an Actof1999,and the remainder ofthe 566Members are
nominated by the Parties,orin the case ofthe non-party Members,by a Committee
which receives nominations from any memberofthe public).So in 1971 I returned to
Parliament,and immediately took an active interest in human rights. One ofthe first
things I did wasto visit Sri Lanka as an emissary ofAmnesty International,to look
into the situation following an insurrection,where they had 16,000 people in custody
without trial. I wentto Argentina after the military coup which brought General
Videlato power in 1976,and to South Africa in 1978 to inquire into deaths in custody
under the apartheid regime,In 1976,1 founded the Parliamentary Human Rights
Group,which had and still has a wide-rangingremitto consider humanrights
problems throughoutthe world,and to promote interestand action through

2. Parliament,byspreading information and byfocussing the attention ofForeign Office
Ministers on these Issues.
Looking back over the quarter ofa century the Group has been in existence,some
progress has been made,though much remains to be done.The Group doesn'tclaim
the credit forthe advances overthis period,because there are many other influences at
work,but both Houses ofParliament are far more active on human rights today,and
we have a Government which said,as soon as it came into office in 1997:
"We shall work chrough our international forums and bilateral
relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties
and democracy which we demand for ourselves".
The reality falls some way short ofthe rhetoric,but we appreciate thatthere are limits
to the possibilityofusing our influence,Britain is no longer a major world power,
although we are fond ofsaying that as a memberofthe Security Council,ofthe G8,
the OECD,the OSCE,the Commonwealth,the Council ofEurope and the EU,we
'punch above our weight'.There may be considerationsofexpediency,orofa
consular and commercial nature, moreover,which may lead us to modify our
approach in particular cases. A topical exampleis tlie case ofZimbabwe,whereif
President Mugabe will listen to anything at all,it hasto comefrom other African
states and not from Britain as the former colonial power. 1 fear,however,that
Zimbabwe hasto be listed among the small number ofregimes which are impervious
to friendly dialogue with the rest ofthe world on human rights,democracy and good
govemance,and will continue along theirown path ofisolation and repression.Iraq
and Myanmar are the only othersthat have to be considered as psychopathic in their
behaviour,though latelythere have been signsthatMyanmar wants to emerge from
its cave,following its engagement with the ILO.
In the rest ofthe world,states are prepared to acknowledge that there is much to be
gained by having a setofuniversally agreed human rights standards,and there are
also accepted waysofmonitoring and reporting on compliance. AttheUN level,there
is the Commission on Human Rights with its special procedures and the six treaty
bodies,and I will come backto thesein a moment.Then there are various regional
mechanisms:in Europe,the most powerful is the European CourtofHuman Rights,
which deals with violations ofthe European Convention on Human Rights,to which
all member states ofthe Council ofEurope adhere. Any citizen in any member state
may appeal to the Courtin Strasbourgfor any violation ofhis or her Convention
rights,and although you might expectthat as memberstates align their domesticlaws
with the Convention there would befewer cases going to the European Court,so far
the numberofcases has increased yearon year,rising to some 3,500judgements in
2002. Particularly interesting,in view ofTurkey's application tojoin the European
Union,has been a series ofjudgements against Turkey in cases oftorture,
extrajudicial execution,freedom ofexpression,and village clearances in connection
with the armed struggle in the southeast.Turkey hasto satisfy the EUthat it is
complying with thesejudgements before the negotiationsfor accession can begin,and
this is one ofthe reasons why,at the recent European Council meeting in
Copenhagen,the decision was putofffor two years until December 2004.

3. There is no time to go into other regional and international mechanisms in detail,but
simply to remark that the Americas have a court; Africa hasaCharterthough it is not
justiciable; Africa also hasthe embryo mechanism ofNePAD,the New Partnership
for African Development,which is to be accompanied bypeer monitoring ofgood
governance,human rights and anti-corruption.The Commonwealth has a further
system ofexamining gross casesofmisgovemmentthroughits Troika and the
Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group,now attempting to deal with Zimbabwe,
and for helping states which indicate their willingness to take advice on issues ofgood
govemance,such as in the present case ofCameroon.1 should also referto the
International Tribunals on the Fomier Yugoslavia and Rwanda,and the Intemational
Criminal Court,which cameinto existence formally last July when theRome Treaty
had been ratified by60states.The Court will deal with genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity,butonly where they were committed after July 1,2002.
Now,withregard to the mechanismsofthe Commission,there are the Intemational
Covenanton Civil and Political Rights,theICCPR,which has been ratified by 150
countries;the Convention Against Torture,ratified by 132 including Bahrain;the
Conventions on eliminating discrimination against women and racial discrimination,
and the Convention on the Rightsofthe Child,all ofwhich have been ratified by
Bahrain. Sothe majorexception is the ICCPR,and this will no doubt be a matterfor
consideration bythe authorities here atsome time in the future. Whether itis to be
dealt with in theAs regardsthe Convention Against Torture,it remainsto beseen how
Decree 56/2002,which appears to grant an amnesty from prosecution for acts of
torture committed before October 2002,can be reconciled with Article4ofthe
Convention,which obliges signatories to ensure that all acts oftorture are offences
under their law,and are subjectto penalties appropriate to their grave nature.It is a
matterofconcern also,that Bahrain did notprovide information to the Committee on
the Rightsofthe Child,aboutserious allegations oftorture and arbitrary detention of
persons under 18,madetothe Working Group on ArbitraryDetention and theSpecial
Rapporteur on Torture.
I should mention that adverse commentwas made bythe Committee on the Rights of
the Child on the UK'spractice ofdetainingsome children in adult prisons,and of
detainingsomechild asylum seekers.The Committee'sfindings were quoted
extensively during the proceedings in Parliament on a Billto reform the asyltun
system last year,and the Governmentaccepted that unaccompanied child asylum
seekers should only be detained in the most exceptional circumstances.
We think ofParliament asthe ultimate forum to which the people can look for the
redressoftheirgrievances,and particularly ofviolationsoftheir human rights. Any
Member ofeither House hasthe right to question Ministers on the exercise oftheir
powers,on the floor ofthe House,in writing,and when satisfaction is nototherwise
obtained,in person.Initially at any rate,it doesn'tseem that your Chamber of
Deputies has asimilarrole.Article65 ofthe Constitution provides thatatleast five
Deputies have to agree on an oral question to a Minister(though under Article 91,a
single Membercan put a written question),and there is no direct reference to human
rights anywhere in the document,though a number ofimportant human rights are
indeed specified in the National Charter and some are paraphrased in Chapter III of
the Constitution.It is notclear whetherthese rights would be enforceable only