SHARING INFORMATION WITH STATES THAT TORTURE Assessment of State compliance with human rights principles (due diligence) The Arar Commission assessed the appropriate response for cooperation and information sharing with States known to torture. It recommended that the Relevant Ministry of Foreign Affairs officer should produce an assessment of the State, and this should be used as a basis for engagement and cooperation. Good practice for sending information to executive agencies overseas For outgoing information, States should provide a clear rule that no information should be shared with a foreign State where there is a credible risk that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture. Assessments should not rely on actual knowledge only, as this inevitably leads to the conclusion that officials can deliberately avoid such knowledge. Whenever there is a reasonable basis for questioning a country’s human rights record, such as reports from credible NGOs, officials should err on the side of caution. Ultimately, information should never be provided where there is a ‘real’ risk that sharing information with another State will cause or contribute to the use of torture. Sir John Sawers (MI6) said clearly the role agencies should play where torture is likely: “Torture is illegal and abhorrent under any circumstances, and we have nothing whatsoever to do with it. If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we’re required by UK and international law to avoid that action. And we do, even though it allows the terrorist activity to go ahead.”49 Information should only be shared in a way which does not identify persons of interest as suspects. Such precision in reports is essential in order to avoid harm to individuals during an investigation. Caution should also be used before using emotive or inflammatory phrases such as ‘Islamic extremist’ or ‘jihadist’. 49 Per Sir John Sawers, Head of UK Secret Intelligence Service, in a speech delivered 28 October 2010. 37