German Evangelicals: Torture Cannot Be Tool in Fight Against Terror

|TOP|The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) has reacted with concern to reports of serious breaches of human rights in the fight against terror.

Head of the EKD, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, said that illegal imprisonments and interrogations under torture cannot be tolerated in a democratic state.

He added: “The end does not justify the means," before appealing for the issue of respect for human rights to be put to the forefront of discussions with Muslims.

“The application of Shariah law as state law should not be accepted if the dignity of the individual is violated," he said.

Bishop Huber also sees difficulty in this context for the peaceful co-existence between religions, expressing the belief that terror attacks justified on religious grounds and the military responses to these attacks have only intensified the conflicts between religions.

|QUOTE|Huber called on the leading representatives of the religions to enter into friendly dialogue and demanded a workable protection of religious freedom.

Bishop Huber’s comments coincide with Human Rights Day on 10th December which will be held this year under the theme of “Torture and Global Efforts to Combat It”.

|AD|UN General Secretary Kofi Annan said: “Let us be clear: torture can never be an instrument to fight terror, for torture is an instrument of terror.”

He added: “Today, on Human Rights Day, let us recommit ourselves to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and let us rededicate ourselves to wiping the scourge of torture from the face of the earth.”

The Law Lords in Britain ruled yesterday that evidence that may have been obtained from terror suspects through torture cannot be used in British law courts, meaning that the cases against eight suspects facing deportation will have to be reconsidered.

The unanimous ruling overturns a controversial Court of Appeal judgement in August last year. The appeal judges then ruled that, if evidence was obtained under torture by agents of another country, with no British involvement, it was still usable in a British court.