Mr. Colm O'Gorman:

On the question concerning the United Nations Convention Against Torture, in recent years Amnesty International has come to recognise the increasing need to mobilise again on torture on a global level. This was not a terribly encouraging realisation. Amnesty International first launched a major global campaign on torture in 1972. Looking back over some of our archives, I found that Seán MacBride launched the global campaign in 1972. This work made a significant contribution to the adoption in 1984 of the convention against torture, which is a United Nations treaty. From memory, I understand 155 states have thus far signed and ratified the convention, while approximately 40 UN member states have not done so. It has, therefore, been widely adopted, and the absolute prohibition against torture is binding on all states under international law, irrespective of whether they have signed the convention.

It is a sobering fact that we decided it was necessary to raise the level of the work Amnesty International has been doing on torture since it was founded to a global priority campaign, which means that every single Amnesty International entity will work on the issue in the coming years. In the past five years, we have reported on 141 states which have ratified the treaty, and in 76 of these - that is, more than half of them - we reported incidents of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is at the global level. We have presented an overview of the Middle East and North Africa region in the context of torture. Torture is, however, a global problem which is prevalent worldwide.

There is no doubt that the justification of torture that occurred after the September 2001 and the arguments about the so-called war on terror have substantially eroded respect for the safeguards that exist. As part of the preparations for our campaign, we surveyed public attitudes towards torture in 21 countries spread across the globe. It was striking that the study found that 82% of people globally wanted stronger mechanisms to protect them from torture and 44% of respondents would fear torture or ill treatment if they were detained or held in custody. However, the survey also found that 36% of the same cohort believed torture could be justified in certain circumstances. The practice at the level of states or their security forces is underpinned by an erosion of public rejection of torture as a principle. This has its basis in the promotion of a culture of fear in which permission is sought to inflict torture on other people.

To respond directly to Deputy Brendan Smith's question on mechanisms, the UN Committee against Torture reviews compliance with the convention against torture in the same was as any of the other treaty body reporting mechanisms do. However, the UN Human Rights Committee and Human Rights Council also consider issues related to torture. It is the Committee against Torture which carries out periodic reviews of compliance among state parties. Another mechanism that is available is the optional protocol to the convention against torture, which allows for a greater level of engagement. If individual complaints have not been addressed at state level, the protocol allows them to be raised with the committee for investigation. While Ireland has not signed the optional protocol, which we strongly urge it to do, it has put in place many of the preventative mechanisms required under the convention. The optional protocol allows for a greater system of inspection and independent complaints where they arise.

A French resolution on Syria is before the Security Council, which is a welcome development. It includes a specific request that the situation in Syria be referred to the International Criminal Court. Amnesty International has been calling consistently for this action since the beginning of conflict in Syria and the emergence of evidence of widespread human rights violations being committed by parties to the conflict. Members will be aware that the Government has also consistently called for this step to be taken. For this reason, I am confident that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be supportive of the resolution at international level. We have not engaged with the Minister directly on the issue because it is only now being tabled. Resolutions of this nature are of crucial importance if we are try to bring the conflict to an end.

Another problem that needs urgent address is the plight of refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. This is where there is a direct European Union component. Another area of particular concern to Amnesty International is the way in which Europe responds to those who are seeking protection. Members will have seen reports as late as yesterday of a boat carrying hundreds of migrants - one report put the number at 400 - that sunk south of Lampedusa in the Mediterranean. Reports over the weekend indicate that 37 migrants died in a shipwreck just off the coast of Libya. These are people fleeing the conflicts in the region to seek protection in Europe. Flight by sea is not the only major issue. The Italian Government undertook an important initiative in recent years when it commenced a search and rescue operation by its naval forces. While this is a major step forward, there is also a phenomenon known as "push-back". Greece is committing appalling human rights violations against people seeking protection by literally pushing people back across its borders to prevent them from accessing protection or safety in Europe. Amnesty International produced a report on this practice in recent weeks. I will provide an example, because the issue relates directly to Syria. I recall reading the details of a case involving a group of Syrian refugees who crossed the border from Turkey into Greece. They were apprehended by the Greek authorities and handed over to men wearing dark or black uniforms with no insignia on them. Their money, possessions and passports were taken and they were transported in small plastic boats across a river and dumped in Turkey. Other reports we have documented include one involving a boat of Syrian refugees that was fired on with live rounds by the Greek coast guard as it approached the coast. People were injured in this incident. Another boat of refugees was pulled back out into international waters after being disabled by the Greek coast guard. Dozens of people subsequently died when it sank.

There are major concerns about the way in which Europe is responding to people fleeing the atrocities and human rights violations being documented by Amnesty International. Europe is failing to respond to this need. To put the issue in context, I recall a startling statistic from the report on the practice of "push-back" in Greece. Europe provided approximately €227 million to Greece to secure its borders but less than €20 million to assist people seeking to access protection. Greece is a country on Europe's borders and these figures tell us something about Europe's priorities. While €220 million was provided to keep out people who need protection and prevent them from entering "Fortress Europe", only €20 million was provided to respond to people who desperately need protection and support. Incidentally, states such as Greece and the wider European Union have clear international obligations on protection under international law.

On the wider question of gender-based violence, over many months and years I am sure this committee has heard about and has a full appreciation of the gender component to human rights violations and concerns. Deputy Smith flagged it well in the context of what we have seen in Nigeria. We live in a world where it is possible for an individual who sees himself as a leader to describe how he will commodify and sell girls of the age of nine or 12 into marriage or sexual slavery, and feel entirely justified in doing that. All of us might see that as extreme, which we should, but it demonstrates an attitude, pervasive across the world, that commodifies and devalues women and girls. The objection to the notion that women and girls have the same rights as other people, including the right to education, is the basis of many such violations, and this is something we must continue to deal with.

A question was asked about the impact of reports. These reports have little impact if all they do is sit on shelves. It is dependent upon people paying attention to what they say, including members of committees such as this one, and our members and others taking action on information we have been able to gather and put in the public domain and the political arena. Reports, statistics, information and compelling stories are meaningless unless people are provoked into taking this kind of injustice personally and doing something about it. This committee has a fine record of doing that, and we hope it will continue to do so.

We know we have an impact. We know it in individual cases. The existence of the UN Convention against Torture is an example of what can be achieved if a sufficient number of people stand up and demand change, whether it is at a local, national or international level. The arms trade treaty agreed last year is another example of the power of individual activism and the work of organisations such as Amnesty International that can work in co-operation with like-minded states that want to act with integrity. In the international arena, Ireland is one of those.

I have tried to deal with the question on the European Union. The specific question I referred to about the notion of "Fortress Europe" is being addressed. I recognise that is not fully a matter for this committee, but members might encourage colleagues in the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs to consider it. It is a grave and significant issue.

I am sure members are wondering what we are asking them to do. I want to flag the specific case of Ibrahim Halawa. As members are aware, Ibrahim has been in prison since August 2014 without referral of his case to court for trial. He was 17, a minor, upon his arrest. He was arrested from the al-Fath mosque on 17 August. We understand he is accused of violence that took place on 16 and 17 August in Ramses Square. Approximately 16,000 people have been arrested, but he is among thousands held in prisons on very broad and vague accusations including attacking security forces and hindering the work of public institutions. Those same accusations are faced by many thousands of people although the Egyptian authorities have not established individual criminal responsibility in these cases. His family, with whom he was in contact, are obviously gravely concerned as they see the level and scale of death sentences and life imprisonment that have been handed down in recent weeks.

Senator Michael Mullins asked if we take any reassurance from the fact that only one execution has been carried out. Frankly, no. Given the number of death sentences that have been handed down and the unprecedented downward spiral witnessed in Egypt in recent months, the answer is "No". It is very difficult to try to apply any kind of logic or reason from a justice perspective to how the Egyptian criminal justice system is functioning at present. One lawyer who is an Amnesty supporter and member said recently that it is almost an insult to even call these trials or to call these people judges. This meets no measure of widely understood fair trial processes. I think he makes a reasonable point. Our specific calls in relation to Ibrahim Halawa are that he should have access to a fair trial, including independent, fair and impartial investigations, and be released if nothing is proved against him. Our primary call at this point is that the Egyptian authorities should urgently either refer his case to trial or release him. We urge the committee - this is a call that is shared by his family, with whom we have been in contact - to make that call directly upon the Egyptian Government via the Egyptian embassy, and to impress upon them the urgency of this particular case.