announced the government’s plans to replace indefinite detention to the House of Commons: [Regarding] deportation with assurances. As the House knows, we have been trying for some time to address the problems posed by individuals whose deportation could fall foul of our international obligations by seeking memorandums of understanding with their countries of origin. We are currently focusing our attention on certain key middle-eastern and north African countries. I am determined to progress this with energy. My noble friend [Foreign Office Minister] Baroness Symons of Vernham visited the region last week. She had positive discussions with a number of countries, on which we are now seeking to build.202 In late February 2005, it was reported that Baroness Symons had traveled to Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia to negotiate agreements for the return of terrorist suspects from the U.K. to those countries.203 The U.K. government acknowledges that the men formerly held in indefinite detention would be at risk of torture if they were to be returned to their countries of origin.204 In addition to their individual risk, the men come from countries where torture is a serious endemic problem. In some countries—Egypt, for example—torture is systematic. In other countries—Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan— persons suspected of terrorist activity or labeled as such are specifically targeted for abusive treatment, including torture. All of the countries routinely violate their international human rights obligations. The process by which the U.K. will go about seeking and securing diplomatic assurances, and what procedural guarantees persons subject to return based on assurances will enjoy, remains unclear. In November 2004, the U.N. Committee against Torture expressed its concern at “the State party’s [U.K.] reported use of diplomatic assurances in the ‘refoulement’ context in circumstances where its minimum standards for such assurances, including effective post-return monitoring arrangements and appropriate due process guarantees followed [sic], are not wholly clear…”205 The Committee requested that within one year, the U.K. provide it “with details on how many cases of extradition or removal subject to receipt of diplomatic assurances or 202 Hansard (House of Common Debates), “Measures to Combat Terrorism,” Statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Clarke), January 26, 2005], Column 307. 203 Nick Fielding, “Foreign Office in Talks to Deport Terror Suspects,” The Sunday Times (London), February 27, 2005, p. 8. 204 All the men are subject to deportation orders in the U.K., and would have already been deported if it were not for the U.K.’s obligations under article 3 of the ECHR. 205 See, Committee against Torture, “Conclusions and Recommendations: Fourth Periodic Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” CAT/C/CR/33/3, December 10, 2004, section 4(d) [online] http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CAT.C.CR.33.3.En?OpenDocument (retrieved March 2, 2005). HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17 NO. 4(D) 68