Written question asked by Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat) on Thursday, 10 June 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 28 June 2004. It was answered by Adam Ingram (Labour) on Monday, 28 June 2004 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Defence

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what account he took of (a) the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Ireland v United Kingdom to outlaw the use of the five techniques of interrogation found to be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention and (b) the response of the then Government to that judgement in setting the parameters for conduct by British forces in Iraq in respect of individuals held. - Inc ref to 419 c1693W, 26 May 2004. (Holding answer 15 June 2004).

Answer: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he took of (a) the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Ireland v. United Kingdom to outlaw the use of the five techniques of interrogation found to be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention and (b) the response of the then Government to that judgment in setting the parameters for conduct by British forces in Iraq in respect of individuals held. [179056] Mr. Ingram: [holding answer 15 June 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 May 2004, Official Report, column 1693W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This remains the Government position. It is made clear to all armed forces personnel undergoing training in interrogation that the five techniques, hooding, wall standing, sleep deprivation, food deprivation, and white noise, are in all circumstances unacceptable as methods of interrogation.

Secondary information