The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the U.K. Government's application to extradite the Islamist Abu Qatada to Jordan. The Jordanian authorities want him for conspiracy to carry out bombings of the American School and the Jerusalem hotel. He was tried in his absence.
The court ruled that evidence obtained by Jordan which put Qatada in the frame was obtained through torture and, therefore, to extradite him would be a breach of his human rights.
Evidence obtained through torture is notoriously problematic, not least because it is wrong. It is also unreliable. If someone was pulling out your fingernails with pliers, beating you every day, threatening to rape your female relatives, you may be inclined to say whatever your torturer wants to hear just to make the pain stop.
However, there are two points here worth considering. Firstly, Qatada himself wasn't tortured and the ruling does not rule out extradition in the future on the ground that it is-
"confident that diplomatic assurances between Britain and Jordan that Abu Qata would not be tortured would be upheld if extradited"
Secondly there is the evidence against Qatada allegedly obtained through torture. If this information was excluded would he still have a case to answer? If so, surely there is scope for us to work with the Jordanian authorities on resolving this issue. Jordan, like the U.K. is attempting to deal with terrorist attacks against its own citizens. The terrorists are trans-national operators and not confined by state boundaries or respect for sovereign rights. It is a global problem and it needs to be tackled at a trans-national level.
A statement issued by the Home Office expressed its disappointment at the ruling but, added that it would continue with its efforts to extradite. I hope it does. We owe it to ourselves and to Jordan to resolve the case in a way which, while upholding our principles to protect the innocent also prevents those same principles from being a hiding place for the guilty.
